On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:07:54AM +0100, Sam Wilson wrote:
...
I *would* recommend using @ everywhere possible - it's so much less
liable to typos than using the real domain and unnecessary obfuscation
is not your friend when it comes to DNS administration. :) :)
...
Seconded.
I would
On 24/07/2010 16:17:13, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
Quick, knee-jerk, which of these is
one day?
86300
68300
863000
It's a trick question, right?
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 04:32:21PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 24/07/2010 16:17:13, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
Quick, knee-jerk, which of these is
one day?
86300
68300
863000
It's a trick question, right?
Very good! ;-)
--
In article mailman.2120.1279397548.21153.bind-us...@lists.isc.org,
Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Lyle Giese wrote:
I would replace example.com in the SOA with @
I generally recommend against doing this unless you are explicitly
planning to use the same
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Lyle Giese wrote:
I would replace example.com in the SOA with @
I generally recommend against doing this unless you are explicitly
planning to use the same zone file with multiple zones. There is no
advantage to using @ in a one-zone file, and unnecessary obfuscation is
old zone file
---
$ORIGIN .
$TTL 3600
example.com IN SOA ns.example.com. root.example.com (
2010071402 ; serial
10800 ; refresh (3 hours)
3600 ; retry (1 hour)
- Original message -
example.com. IN SOA
[...]
IN NS ns.example.com.
IN MX 10 ns.example.com.
The A record for ns.example.com is missing from your zone.
Will my proposed set up work on the old
7 matches
Mail list logo
