On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 10:18:28AM -0400, Steve Linberg wrote:
[snip]
> Forgive me if this is a stupid question: does dnscache run alongside BIND,
> or replace it? Building BIND in a chroot jail and getting it all to work
> was probably the most time-consuming part of getting my server running,
> and I'm *really* loath to mess with it now that it seems OK.
dnscache can run alongside BIND as long as you configure it to a
different IP. You could even run dnscache on 127.0.0.1 if you want to.
> Does dnscache store cached DNS information in a way that is easier for
> qmail to understand than raw BIND/DNS data?
dnscache only gives back what qmail asks for, not a lot of other crap.
This means the answer to a query for 'MX msn.com' actually fits in 512
bytes.
> My overwhelming preference would be to patch qmail so that it understands
> what msn.com is sending to it. I'm still not sure I understand the
> problem well enough to know what to do, but I'm wondering why this isn't a
> problem with everybody who runs qmail if qmail is choking on msn.com's
> response. Do people get different versions of msn's DNS information
> depending on their nameserver configurations?
Yes, since dnscache only returns what it is asked, the result set is
smaller.
> Is it possible that this problem is more than just the buffer-size issue,
> or that the patch that increases the buffer size isn't a complete
> solution?
Well, since you state that mailing to large-mx works for you, we
should consider the option that it is indeed something else.
Greetz, Peter
--
Monopoly http://www.dataloss.nl/monopoly.html
