To ask for better MX record handling in Deadwood is a feature request, not a bug report. And upstream’s answer is: I’m not going to do that. Most people should be using their ISPs mail hub to send mail, not a small virtual server.
The nice thing about open source is that Andreas (or anyone else) is free to update Deadwood to have better MX support if this is something which scratches his itch (he can fix the issues with out-of-bailiwick CNAME record handling while he’s still inspired to do a bunch of work for free) — but that’s not my itch. Deadwood’s big advantage of dnamasq is that it allows stuff like “use slow in house DNS servers to resolve hostname.example.com, but use 8.8.8.8/4.2.2.1/whatever to resolve anything anything else” in a configuration file (dnsmasq handles that with a special “-S” flag). — Sam On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Andreas Metzler <ametz...@bebt.de> wrote: > On 2017-05-05 Andreas Metzler <ametz...@bebt.de> wrote: >> Hello, > >> deadwood was released as stable by upstream. However the Debian package >> only provides a bare-bone binary without infrastructure >> (init-script/systemd support files). While the package description >> documents this no reason is given why. > > Hello, > > I think I have found a reason for not using deadwood. In short I have > the feeling that it is not optimized for the use-case where it might be > useful. :-( > > I wanted to use deadwood on a vserver with limited resources, handling > e-mail an WWW, and deadwood seemed to match the requirements: > * small/tiny > * recursive > * caching > > However according to deadwood(1) it would perform poorly there since MX > handling is - eh - suboptimal: > | please keep in mind that Deadwood is optimized to be used for web > | surfing, not as a DNS server for a mail hub. In particular, the IPs > | for MX records are removed from Deadwood's replies and Deadwood needs > | to perform additional DNS queries to get the IPs corresponding to MX > | records > > OTOH for /web/ /surfing/ I would rather use dnsmasq. I do not see the > requirement for recursive DNS there and the resources on desktop > computers used for surfing are not strained, tinyness is not a > requirement here. > > Anyway. Before discovering this I spent some time on packaging deadwood. > Preliminary patch attached. (Before uploading I'd switch to a customized > dwood3rc in debian/ instead of patching the upstream version.) > > cu Andreas > -- > And so my quest for a dnscache replacement continued.
