Re: [Pdns-users] TLS issues with LDAP backend on FreeBSD

2008-06-26 Thread srinisan
Sorry, I forgot one more thing I have in pdns.conf. ldap-starttls=yes On Jun 26, 2008, at 2:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jun 26, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Norbert Sendetzky wrote: Please try "ldapsearch -ZZ ..." as "-Z" only tries to connect using TLS but falls back to normal connections if

Re: [Pdns-users] Cleanest way to delete unexitant domains on slave?

2008-06-26 Thread Augie Schwer
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Anton - Valqk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm wondering what' the cleanes way to delete unexistent (deleted) > domains domains from slave powerdns that > have been populated there from a supermaster server? There is no automatic way; you must do this with code. Ei

Re: [Pdns-users] TLS issues with LDAP backend on FreeBSD

2008-06-26 Thread srinisan
On Jun 26, 2008, at 2:08 PM, Norbert Sendetzky wrote: Please try "ldapsearch -ZZ ..." as "-Z" only tries to connect using TLS but falls back to normal connections if TLS fails. -ZZ is also successful. It would be also interesting to see your ldap related pdns.conf settings. The only tw

Re: [Pdns-users] TLS issues with LDAP backend on FreeBSD

2008-06-26 Thread Norbert Sendetzky
On Thursday 26 June 2008 06:26:08 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > When TLS is turned on, I can run the regular LDAP client apps > (ldapsearch, ldapadd, etc.) using the -Z option which forces TLS. > Also, not using -Z gives me the "Confidentiality Required" error on > those LDAP clients. So, I know that

Re: [Pdns-users] Basic PowerDNS Wildcard Question

2008-06-26 Thread Tom Rossi
Alan, I'm so sorry! You are absolutely correct! I thought I tested that scenario last night, but I just tested again and it works. So with DNS records like the following: *.example.com CNAME host.anotherdomain.com example.com A 192.168.0.1 I am able to resolve "anything.example.com" as well a

RE: [Pdns-users] Delegating whole domain

2008-06-26 Thread Adam Long
Wouldn't it be possible to create a "mock" .pl root zone on your server and delegate yyy.pl to your nameserver of choice? I could only see this causing issues if your server is also recursive in addition to being authoritative. Maybe I am wrong here? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROT

Re: [Pdns-users] Delegating whole domain

2008-06-26 Thread Lazy
2008/6/24 bert hubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:40:29AM +0200, Lazy wrote: >> Hello, >> We have some troble delegating the wlole domain on some other >> nameserver. Delegating subdomains works flawlessly. > > Are you trying to re-delegate a domain? So in the .pl zone it is d

Re: [Pdns-users] Basic PowerDNS Wildcard Question

2008-06-26 Thread Alan Hodgson
On Thursday 26 June 2008, "Tom Rossi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alan, > > Sorry, I should have included scenario 4 which also does not work: > > SCENARIO 4 > > *.example.com CNAME host.anotherdomain.com > example.com A 192.168.0.1 > > This will resolve "anything.example.com" but will NOT resolve

Re: [Pdns-users] Basic PowerDNS Wildcard Question

2008-06-26 Thread Tom Rossi
Alan, Sorry, I should have included scenario 4 which also does not work: SCENARIO 4 *.example.com CNAME host.anotherdomain.com example.com A 192.168.0.1 This will resolve "anything.example.com" but will NOT resolve "example.com" On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Alan Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Pdns-users] Basic PowerDNS Wildcard Question

2008-06-26 Thread Alan Hodgson
On Wednesday 25 June 2008, "Tom Rossi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm getting PowerDNS up and running and so far really like it. I'm > having a problem though with creating a record to resolve the domain > by itself. For example, I would like a CNAME or A record for the > domain by itself You

Re: [Pdns-users] Basic PowerDNS Wildcard Question

2008-06-26 Thread Tom Rossi
Thanks for looking at this for me! I am on version 2.9.21... On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:10 AM, bert hubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom, > > Before delving deeply in your excellent description below, are you testing > with 2.9.21? > > It is different than 2.9.20 in CNAME handling. > >B