Re: DNS: inverse lockup returning multiple host names --- allowed or not allowed?

2006-02-13 Thread Christoph Anton Mitterer
. wrote: The BIND ARM (http://www.isc.org/sw/bind/arm93/Bv9ARM.ch06.html#id2566487) says that it's ok to have mutliple PTRs Chris. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DNS: inverse lockup returning multiple host names --- allowed or not allowed?

2006-02-01 Thread M. Maas
Don't request read receipts when you post to this mailing list please? Thanks loads. . wrote: Hi, I'm trying to find out if it is allowed to have several hostnames being returned from inverse DNS queries (example see below). RFC 1034 and RFC 1035 don't seem to answer that question.

Re: DNS: inverse lockup returning multiple host names --- allowed or not allowed?

2006-02-01 Thread listrcv
M. Maas schrieb: Don't request read receipts when you post to this mailing list please? Thanks loads. Yeah, sorry; it´s on by default and I forgot to turn it off. GH -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DNS: inverse lockup returning multiple host names --- allowed or not allowed?

2006-02-01 Thread Ronny Aasen
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 18:44 +0100, . wrote: Hi, I'm trying to find out if it is allowed to have several hostnames being returned from inverse DNS queries (example see below). RFC 1034 and RFC 1035 don't seem to answer that question. Example: bulma:~# dig -x 193.158.67.67 ;

DNS: inverse lockup returning multiple host names --- allowed or not allowed?

2006-01-27 Thread .
Hi, I'm trying to find out if it is allowed to have several hostnames being returned from inverse DNS queries (example see below). RFC 1034 and RFC 1035 don't seem to answer that question. Example: bulma:~# dig -x 193.158.67.67 ; DiG 9.2.1 -x 193.158.67.67 ;; global options: