Re: check-names vs. acl

2010-02-26 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
> In message <20100225123134.gb2...@fantomas.sk>, Matus UHLAR - fantomas writes: > > On 25.02.10 12:01, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > I see that hosts that are not allowed to recurse are often generating > > > check-named errors. > > > > check-names it is. > > > > I apparently too often use

Re: check-names vs. acl

2010-02-25 Thread Mark Andrews
In message <20100225123134.gb2...@fantomas.sk>, Matus UHLAR - fantomas writes: > On 25.02.10 12:01, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > I see that hosts that are not allowed to recurse are often generating > > check-named errors. > > check-names it is. > > I apparently too often use "named" so I d

check-names vs. acl

2010-02-25 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 25.02.10 12:01, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > I see that hosts that are not allowed to recurse are often generating > check-named errors. check-names it is. I apparently too often use "named" so I do this king of mistypes. > I wonder if it wouldn't be better to check ACL's first and check-n