On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 11:04:52AM +0300, Peter Peltonen wrote:
[snip]
> Here is another question to keep this hilarous thread alive:
Please stop this thread.
> Is there any relationship with the MX record and qmail's control/me variable.
> If they are different, will it cause any trouble? I sup
Markus Stumpf wrote:
> The funny thing about this whole thread is that the source of all
> problems is probably a lousy provider, that doesn't care for PTR
> delegations. So why don't you get yourself a caring one?
Actually, they do care about them, but aren't that happy to make them. And I
don'
At 03:37 PM 5/4/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> >BINDthinkers cannot just jump blindly into djbdnsthink. There are going to
> >be a few posts now and again where someone is going to show a few zone
> >records to clarify their point while they transition into qmail/djbdns/etc.
>
>Such zone file excerpts s
Everybody seriously needs to lighten up.
A LOT.
"q question" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>END OF DISCUSSION
Sorry, q, but I'm not ready to end the discussion, despite your
declaration.
>Dave Sill wrote:
>>
>>"q question" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >I was appalled when [Charles] said "please don't post BIND zonefiles
>> >to Dan's lists".
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 01:19:17PM -0500, q question wrote:
> I have shown respect for DJB and everyone on this list. I am looking very
> seriously at installing djbdns, and I'm sure that djbdns is in fact probably
> going to show itself to be superior to BIND.
Heh, it's funny how some people t
>From: "Dave Sill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Can MX record be CNAME?
>Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 08:32:58 -0400
>
>"q question" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I was appalled when [Charles] said "please
temper, temper, Henning...
my temper got me into trouble earlier this week... just let them act like children and
let it go
- hogan
At 03:15 AM 5/4/2001, you wrote:
>On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 08:18:56PM -0500, q question wrote:
>> >Please stop this useless flaming. You aren't posting anything us
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 11:14:52AM +0300, Peter Peltonen wrote:
> But you are absolutely sure that it won't? If so, great, no problemo then.
You can't be sure about anything.
There are broken DNS libraries out there, paranoid configured
tcpservers/inetds/...
The funny thing about this whole thre
"q question" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I was appalled when [Charles] said "please don't post BIND zonefiles
>to Dan's lists". That is a blanket directive that is not necessarily
>shared by everyone on this list, certainly not me.
directive <> request
>A few lines of zone records speaks volume
* Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010504 04:49]:
[...]
> You are posting tons of useless OFF TOPIC stuff and not a single on-topic
> message so far, please stop this NOW.
http://www.moongroup.com/stories.php?story=01/04/19/7271589 - nice site,
too.
And fix your sig. Noone's gonna call you wi
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 08:18:56PM -0500, q question wrote:
> >Please stop this useless flaming. You aren't posting anything usefull, just
> >flaming charles. This is a technical discussion list, no smalltalk. Either
> >provide answers or participate in technical discussions or shut up.
> I am no
Aaron Goldblatt wrote:
> With respect to the remainder of your question, reverse resolution isn't a
> necessary consideration.
>
> For example:
>
> mail.goldblatt.net -- 208.190.130.82. It reverses to
> wndrgrl.goldblatt.net. It still works.
This is the case what made me think the subject
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 08:16:16PM -0500, q question wrote:
> Actually, I think I could never have solved the sendmail configuration
> problems that I have solved without knowing BIND thoroughly. Mail
> administration maintenance doesn't need detailed BIND, but the initial
> sendmail configurat
I shall make no further comment.
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 05:32:52PM -0500, Aaron Goldblatt wrote:
> If you are using a.b.c.d notation in your MX record, you must remember to
> update that record in addition to all your A records.
a MX record has to have a FQDN and *not* an IP address.
Or did you mean a.b.c.d to be a FQDN rather
>Please stop this useless flaming. You aren't posting anything usefull, just
>flaming charles. This is a technical discussion list, no smalltalk. Either
>provide answers or participate in technical discussions or shut up.
I am not flaming Charles in any way. I have been completely respectful. I
>From: Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Can MX record be CNAME?
>Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 14:10:23 -0600
>
>q question <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > And please don't post BIND zonefiles to Dan
>Which is pointless. You can't receive mail without advertising the domain
>in
>the DNS, so trying to hide the information here achieves precisely nothing.
That's not true. I've dealt with plenty of internal corporate email
situations that are not exposed to the internet email. Not all email
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 05:32:52PM -0500, Aaron Goldblatt wrote:
> If you use mail.whatever.com in your MX record, you have only to update
> your A record, which makes it less likely that in the event of a renumber,
> you'll screw it up and cut off mail service for a week. The down side is
> t
>So, having multiple A records pointing to the same IP is ok then, when it
>comes to MX?
MX records are considered and resolved separately from A records.
With respect to the remainder of your question, reverse resolution isn't a
necessary consideration.
For example:
mail.goldblatt.net --
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 04:39:32PM -0400, Kris von Mach wrote:
>
> So, having multiple A records pointing to the same IP is ok then, when it
> comes to MX?
>
> like this:
>
> IN MX 10 mail.swishmail.com.
> $ORIGIN swishmail.com.
> ; Setup forward DNS for all hosts
>
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Kris von Mach wrote:
> Why can't it be a CNAME? Is there a reason for this? I am currently using it
> as a CNAME and it's been working fine for a year or so... If there is a good
> reason for it, I sure would like to know so I can make changes.
The CNAME RR means "this machin
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 04:39:32PM -0400, Kris von Mach wrote:
> At 11:09 AM 5/3/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> >This means that pointing MX, NS, and SOA (at least) at a CNAME is not
> >recommended. Personally, I hate CNAME, and I almost never use it. I can
> >think of only one specialized use where CNA
Kris von Mach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, having multiple A records pointing to the same IP is ok then, when it
> comes to MX?
Yes.
> Or should MX mail.swishmail.com point to an IP address that nothing else
> points to? like for example:
No, not necessary.
> The reason why I am asking
At 11:09 AM 5/3/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>This means that pointing MX, NS, and SOA (at least) at a CNAME is not
>recommended. Personally, I hate CNAME, and I almost never use it. I can
>think of only one specialized use where CNAME comes in handy
>(third-party hosting). Nearly everything else can be
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 02:04:55PM -0500, q question wrote:
> 3) The people that don't do BINDthink aren't going to understand either the
> sentence format or the exact record layout. I think people either know or
> don't know DNS, and they don't fall into a middle ground that can be
> addresse
q question <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > And please don't post BIND zonefiles to Dan's lists -- [...]
> > Instead, tell us [the contents of the DNS records]
> 4) You have stated repeatedly that people must provide detailed information
> in their emails to this list. Kris did so, and you pro
q question <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charles and James,
>
> Some people may have private domains that they don't wish to disclose. These
> people are usually advanced enough to do a clear job with generic a.b.c
> notation.
Which is pointless. You can't receive mail without advertising the
>Nope, "mail.swishmail.com" cannot be a CNAME if you want to point your MX
>record at it. It's forbidden.
>
>And please don't post BIND zonefiles to Dan's lists -- they're meaningless
>to
>anyone who doesn't do BINDthink. Instead, tell us what's happening
>("mail.foo.net is an MX record which p
ed to translate correctly into generic a.b.c
notation.
>From: James Raftery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Can MX record be CNAME?
>Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 16:45:27 +0100
>
>On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 10:14:38AM -0500, q question wrote:
> > Why did
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:53:44PM -0400, Kris von Mach wrote:
> At 08:34 AM 5/3/2001 -0600, you wrote:
> > Unfortunately I do not control my PTR records so I have to do the dns name
> > change with CNAME.
> >
> > My questions are:
> >
> > Can MX record point to a CNAME?
>
CC --> No, never.
Kris von Mach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Can MX record point to a CNAME?
> >No, never.
> Oh I have this currently:
>
> IN NS ns1.webgoku.com.
> IN NS ns2.webgoku.com.
> IN MX 10 mail.swishmail.com.
> $ORIGIN s
At 08:34 AM 5/3/2001 -0600, you wrote:
> > Unfortunately I do not control my PTR records so I have to do the dns name
> > change with CNAME.
> >
> > My questions are:
> >
> > Can MX record point to a CNAME?
>
>No, never.
Charles,
Why can't it be a CNAME? Is there a reason for this? I am currentl
Kris von Mach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Unfortunately I do not control my PTR records so I have to do the dns
> > > name change with CNAME. My questions are: Can MX record point to a
> > > CNAME?
> > No, never.
> Why can't it be a CNAME?
Because it is forbidden by the RFCs.
> Is t
At 08:34 AM 5/3/2001 -0600, you wrote:
> Unfortunately I do not control my PTR records so I have to do the dns name
> change with CNAME.
>
> My questions are:
>
> Can MX record point to a CNAME?
No, never.
Charles,
Why can't it be a CNAME? Is there a reason for this? I am currently using
What Charles said is totally correct, however I do not understand:
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 08:34:04AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> Peter Peltonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Unfortunately I do not control my PTR records so I have to do the dns name
> > change with CNAME.
What do - in this
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 10:14:38AM -0500, q question wrote:
> Why did you tell Peter this would have been easier if he had used real
> names? I found it very clear and frankly I prefer a.b.c and 1.2.3.4 to
> reading full domain names and ip numbers when the shorthand can convey the
> point clea
q question <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >This would have been easier if you'd used real names. However...
>
> Why did you tell Peter this would have been easier if he had used real
> names?
Because I believe that it would have been clearer if he had used real names?
My eyes quickly get tired o
>This would have been easier if you'd used real names. However...
Charles,
Why did you tell Peter this would have been easier if he had used real
names? I found it very clear and frankly I prefer a.b.c and 1.2.3.4 to
reading full domain names and ip numbers when the shorthand can convey the
>This would have been easier if you'd used real names. However...
Charles,
Why did you tell Peter this would have been easier if he had used real
names? I found it very clear and frankly I prefer a.b.c and 1.2.3.4 to
reading full domain names and ip numbers when the shorthand can convey the
Peter Peltonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have a mail server with A record a.b.c and PTR record 1.2.3.4. The MX record
> says naturally a.b.c too.
>
> I want to change the servers dns name to mail.b.c.
This would have been easier if you'd used real names. However...
> Unfortunately I do
42 matches
Mail list logo
