Am 08.09.2015 um 06:46 schrieb stavrostseriotis:
Ok here is what I did:
·After extracting the package I looked out at directories
*/usr/local/bin *and */usr/local/sbin *as mentioned in the procedure but
I found that there are no files there.
man updatedb
man locate
·I run *configure* comma
On 08-Sep-15 00:46, stavrostseriotis wrote:
>
> Ok here is what I did:
>
> · After extracting the package I looked out at directories
> */usr/local/bin *and */usr/local/sbin *as mentioned in the procedure
> but I found that there are no files there.
>
> · I run *configure* command
Yes you are right probably I will uninstall bind and install the RedHat
version.
This procedure took an awful lot time and is still in progress. So I guess
that this is the best option that I have.
Thank you
From: bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] O
Robert,
Try setting the “Refresh” value in your SOA record to 3600. RFC1912 recommends
refresh values between 1200 and 43200. If notify messages are not working, I’d
set it to 20 or 30 minutes, myself. if the zone is unchanged, all it costs you
is one SOA query by the slave. Just make sure
Hi.
I would like to ask if there is any documentation
describing if any version of BIND didn't comply
with RFC 4074. And in case there was such version,
in which release it was fixed?
I tried to go through CHANGELOG and to Google it,
but without any luck.
Thanks.
Regards,
--
Tomas Hozza
Softwa
In article ,
Tomas Hozza wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I would like to ask if there is any documentation
> describing if any version of BIND didn't comply
> with RFC 4074. And in case there was such version,
> in which release it was fixed?
>
> I tried to go through CHANGELOG and to Google it,
> but withou
Mark Andrews wrote:
> Because outlook.com's nameservers are not EDNS compliant which
> breaks anyone attempting to use EDNS extensions unless they hack
> around this.
Some of their nameservers are not even compliant with RFC 2181 §5.2.
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;outlook.com. IN
On 2015-09-08 11:53, Robert Edmonds wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
Because outlook.com's nameservers are not EDNS compliant which
breaks anyone attempting to use EDNS extensions unless they hack
around this.
Some of their nameservers are not even compliant with RFC 2181 §5.2.
;; QUESTION SECTION:
In message <55eee8b0.6070...@redhat.com>, Tomas Hozza writes:
> Hi.
>
> I would like to ask if there is any documentation
> describing if any version of BIND didn't comply
> with RFC 4074. And in case there was such version,
> in which release it was fixed?
There is no version which had those is
OK I will forward this message to their windns list.
Thx.
On 2015/9/9 星期三 2:53, Robert Edmonds wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
Because outlook.com's nameservers are not EDNS compliant which
breaks anyone attempting to use EDNS extensions unless they hack
around this.
Some of their nameservers are
10 matches
Mail list logo
