Eric C. Davis wrote:
Are there plans for Bind to enforce hostname compliance according
to RFC's or is this going to be left up to each DNS operator?
the question of benefit always arises when considering the
application of RFCs. It's probably better not enforcing things
just for the sake of
Al Stu wrote:
History is fraught with individuals or a few being ridiculed for
putting forth that which goes against the conventional wisdom of the
masses and so called experts, only to be vindicated once the masses
and so called experts get their head out where the sun is shining and
exposed
Dean Clapper wrote:
I'm trying to troubleshoot why we are getting a lot of disabling EDNS
messages in /var/log/messages.
We are running bind-9.5.0.P2 on a linux box.
Jan 27 11:42:23 ns0 named[27764]: too many timeouts resolving
'host2.centmine.com/' (in 'centmine.com'?): disabling EDNS
Al Stu wrote:
BIND 9.6 ‘named’ throws the following message during startup claiming
that it is illegal to use a CNAME/alias in the MX record.
I beg to differ. There is no such standard nor requirement prohibiting
the use of CNAME/alias in an MX record.
Some people seem to think RFC 974 creates a
Scott Haneda wrote:
I brought this up a few months back. For me, it is getting worse, and
I am not able to come up with a solution.
I have many clients who reg domains. They all point to my NS.
Sometimes, the client lapses hosting with me, and I delete the zones.
They usually leave the
5 matches
Mail list logo
