Hi
Occasionally we see customer is complainning that we are not able to
resolve mx record when mxtoolbox or other website can resolve their mx
record .
If i do a trace on the domain, i get bellow .
now the problem is :
demeter.is.co.za. and babylon.mitsol.co.za does not know anything
about MX
Your glue is broken. You need to update the glue NS records in the
parent to reflect the actual nameservers that are authoritative for
the zone.
It also looks like you could have some data mismatch between zones
hosted on (ns1.yithosting.co.za + ns2.yithosting.co.za) and
(demeter.is.co.za +
Hi
thanks for reply,
I am not the domain admin for rbcaa.co.za
I can see they have issue with their domain setup .
but what I want to know is :
when all Dns server can resolved their mx record example ,
mxtoolbox,introdns,google .. (Despite they have issue with their dns
setup for that domain (as
On 05.07.13 12:59, Fosiul Alam wrote:
I am not the domain admin for rbcaa.co.za
I can see they have issue with their domain setup .
but what I want to know is :
when all Dns server can resolved their mx record example ,
mxtoolbox,introdns,google .. (Despite they have issue with their dns
setup
The other DNS server software is working around or ignoring
the issues. Server software varies in how much it ignores or
works around bad domain setups. Also, in some situations,
configuration problems result in symptoms that come and go.
One reason DNS software is picky about correct setups
Other possibility is to implement packet rate limiting - a patch was
discussed here a few days/weeks ago.
I endorse this suggestion: we were faced with such attacks and were
naturally leery about issues we might run into running a patched bind
and the additional tuning it could require. Our
From: John Wobus jw...@cornell.edu
Other possibility is to implement packet rate limiting - a patch was
discussed here a few days/weeks ago.
I endorse this suggestion: we were faced with such attacks and were
naturally leery about issues we might run into running a patched bind
and the
On Jun 28, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Ward, Mike S wrote:
I want to thank everyone for their input. It sounds like they do
need the reverse address entries in specific circumstances so I’m
going to recommend that they add them.
Lack of reverse records made a big difference in the distant past.
Now,
On 2013-07-05 07:21, John Wobus wrote:
I endorse this suggestion: we were faced with such attacks and were
naturally leery about issues we might run into running a patched bind
and the additional tuning it could require. Our experience is: the RRL
patch, used with its default parameters, simply
From: Dave Warren da...@hireahit.com
I haven't been following the RRL discussions too closely, is this patch
scheduled to be included in BIND9 proper or will it remain a patch?
} From: Evan Hunt each at isc.org
} It's not built into bind (yet).
}
} Correct. For the record, it'll be in
10 matches
Mail list logo
