I agree, it's still a proposed standard, but it seems to be in use as windows 2003 ships with EDNS0 activated.
Although I don't think this is the problem Edinilson has. Looking at his previous email (with the spool files) the dns server is resolving hotmail.com fine. Could it be that hotmail is getting too much spam from brazilian ip address space and they just drop anything from it, at least in those moments, when spammers are very very active? And yes, it would be a better world without that buggy, memory eating MS DNS service. Bind works also on windows, but not many people seem to know that. Dario -----Messaggio originale----- Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Per conto di Tracy Inviato: domenica 13 marzo 2005 18.05 A: xmail@xmailserver.org Oggetto: [xmail] Re: R: Re: Problems with hotmail.com According to my reading of RFC2671,those are optional extensions and do not override the original specification in RFC1035. While it is certainly possible for a client to support them (and perhaps even an "expected behavior" in today's Internet), I don't see anything there that indicates that their adoption is a requirement.... (It's actually a non-issue for me, locally, as I support whatever BIND 9.2.4 supports, and I'm not doing any packet length checks at the firewall for DNS packets - but doubtless there are those who are, and I don't see anything in RFC2671 that requires them to change) At 09:46 3/13/2005, Dario wrote: >That should be in RFC 2671... > >Dario > >-----Messaggio originale----- >Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Per >conto di Tracy >Inviato: domenica 13 marzo 2005 14.43 >A: xmail@xmailserver.org >Oggetto: [xmail] Re: Problems with hotmail.com > >At 00:09 3/13/2005, Kroll, David wrote: > >This is a Win2003 DNS issue. > >Some mailservers behind firewalls which do not allow transfer of UDP >packets > >larger than 512 bytes may not be able to return the MX record > > > >If your firewall restricts UDP packet transfers though, you may want to > >verify that it will allow transfer of a MX record within the size > >limitations specified by RFC1035: > > > >http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1035.html > > > >Windows 2003 server has included Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0) to > >allow larger packets. If you run this command on a 2003 server: "dnscmd > >Server Name/Config /EnableEDnsProbes 0", it fixes it without making any > >changes to the firewall. > >OK, did I miss something, or have UDP-based DNS messages been changed since >the last time I looked? > ><checks RFC1035> > >Nope... Still a 512 octet message length (section 2.3.4). Any UDP-based DNS >message longer than that is not RFC compliant, and (IMHO) should be >blocked. That's why there's a method to fall back to TCP when there's more >data to be returned than will fit in a 512 octet message.... > >If there's an RFC that allows larger packets in UDP, could you reference it >please? > >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in >the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in >the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
