Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] can't get multiple domains to work

I didn't because it seemed wrong, generally speaking the last entry for a given keyword should override former if dups are allowed at all. In any case I just tried and that's what happened, with domain=good domain=better host.better started to resolve and host.good no longer resolved. that said

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] can't get multiple domains to work

Have you tried using more than one domain= line? On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Spike wrote: > Dear all, > > first time poster here so first things first, thanks to all of you that > have worked on dnsmasq, all of us here have greatly benefited for years > from this great

[Dnsmasq-discuss] can't get multiple domains to work

Dear all, first time poster here so first things first, thanks to all of you that have worked on dnsmasq, all of us here have greatly benefited for years from this great piece of software. Second, my google-fu and manpage reading are failing me and I can't seem to find a way to have dnsmasq

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Support of labels in --interface

I think it is automatic if there is already IP from the same subnet on that interface. $ ip a add 192.168.122.1/24 dev virbr0 # no secondary flag yet, first address of 192.168.122.0/24 $ ip a add 192.168.122.254/24 dev virbr0 label virbr0:1 # secondary flag present, it is second address of

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] [OT] A question about MX records

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 09:25:01PM -0600, richardvo...@gmail.com wrote: >If by "alias", you mean a second A record for 84.92.49.234, then the >common practice is to use a hostname of mail.domain.tld Yes, this is what I intended to mean. My question is whether it's necessary to do this so