> > On 27.01.09 08:46, Al Stu wrote:
> > > So then you disagree that the following example returns a valid address
> > > record for srv1?
> > >
> > > srv1 300 IN A 1.2.3.4
> > > mx1 300 IN CNAME srv1.xyz.com.
> > > @ 300 IN MX 1 mx1.xyz.com.
> > >
> > > 1) Select Target Host:
> > > The MX q
"Reinis Rozitis" wrote:
> > I've been using an include file for zones common between multiple
> > views, might help in your case too.
>
> Thanks somehow didnt think about this way. Pretty much takes to
> acceptable solution :)
Yes, "include" statement is the best option especially if you have
In article ,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 27.01.09 08:46, Al Stu wrote:
> > So then you disagree that the following example returns a valid address
> > record for srv1?
> >
> > srv1 300 IN A 1.2.3.4
> > mx1 300 IN CNAME srv1.xyz.com.
> > @ 300 IN MX 1 mx1.xyz.com.
> >
> > 1) Select
In article ,
mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst) wrote:
> Barry Margolin writes:
>
> >customer.com. IN MX 10 mx.yourdomain.com.
> >mx.yourdomain.com. IN CNAME mx.outsourcer.com.
> >mx.outsourcer.com. IN A ...
>
> That's just the same as
>
> | customer.com. IN MX 10 mx.outsourcer.com.
> | mx
In article ,
Mark Andrews wrote:
> Liberal in what you accepts means don't die on arbitary
> input. You should still reject rubbish.
But MX pointing to CNAME is not "rubbish". It's a violation of the
letter of the spec, but it's very clear what is intended.
--
Barry Margolin, b
"Jukka Pakkanen" wrote:
>There are many free third party firewall packages that can be run in Window=
>s =
>
>2003 Server, we use the Net Firewall.
Do you have a URL? I found http://www.ntkernel.com/w&p.php?id=18 but it's not
free.
I'm also going to ask my fellow MVPs as well.
Tony
--
Tony T
"Tony Toews [MVP]" wrote:
>26-Jan-2009 14:28:24.004 client 76.9.16.171#23101: query: . IN NS +
>26-Jan-2009 14:28:58.254 client 63.217.28.226#28035: query: . IN NS +
>26-Jan-2009 14:29:00.691 client 63.217.28.226#35549: query: . IN NS +
>26-Jan-2009 14:29:26.332 client 76.9.16.171#19817: query: .
Yes, basically what I need is a forwarder. Basically I want an internal
network but external queries must be handled by another server.
Thanks a lot for the quick reply.
Kind Regards,
Luis
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Serge Fonville wrote:
> I should have sent this to the list
>
>
> On Tue,
In message , "Jeremy C. Ree
d" writes:
> > I'm trying to troubleshoot why we are getting a lot of disabling EDNS
> > messages in /var/log/messages.
> >
> > We are running bind-9.5.0.P2 on a linux box.
> >
> > Jan 27 11:42:23 ns0 named[27764]: too many timeouts resolving
> > 'host2.centmine.com
In message , "Al Stu" writes:
> So then you disagree that the following example returns a valid address
> record for srv1?
The MX query won't return the A record for srv1. The
additional section processing rules say to add A /
records not CNAME records.
You
In message <260425.38131...@web38201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, W Sanders writes:
> The easy way to block people trying to DoS you, without needing a firewall,
> is to just null route their IP: "add route
> 1.2.3.4 127.0.0.1". Of course this blocks ALL traffic from that IP, but in
> most cases the IP
I personally really like SENDS. Works fine, has lasted long time, with only
minor changes as perl has evolved. However, note that the last few times we
tried to supply updates, we haven't succeeded. The below FTP server may or may
not be available; I could not reach it in the past 10 minutes.
Dean Clapper wrote:
I'm trying to troubleshoot why we are getting a lot of disabling EDNS
messages in /var/log/messages.
We are running bind-9.5.0.P2 on a linux box.
Jan 27 11:42:23 ns0 named[27764]: too many timeouts resolving
'host2.centmine.com/' (in 'centmine.com'?): disabling EDNS
Ja
In message <497f2cfe.8070...@yahoo.com>, Andre LeClaire writes:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
> > In message <497caef2.80...@yahoo.com>, Andre LeClaire writes:
> >> Hello everyone,
> >> I've been seeing these syslog messages for about a week on a FreeBSD
> >> server running BIND 9.4.3-P1:
> >>
> >> Jan 2
Hi Bind experts,
I'm looking to do some automation of bind administration - particularly
adding and removing A Records, PTRs, and CNAMEs. Dynamic DNS is not
appropriate as there is a strong requirement for change management on the
zone files. Anyone have a strong belief in one or another tool, pa
When Section 5.1 of RFC 5321 says "If a CNAME record is found, the
resulting name is processed as if it were the initial name", it is
referring to the situation where a query is sent for the MX record for
xyz.com, and instead of an MX record being returned for xyz.com, a CNAME
record is returned fo
I should have sent this to the list
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Serge Fonville
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Not sure what your endgoal is, but...
>
> If you want a specific zone to be queried on the external nameserver, you
> can create a forward zone.
> If you want all unresolvable queries to be forw
> >How about these two?
> >
> >> nullmx.domainmanager.com
> >Non-authoritative answer:
> >Name:mta.dewile.net
> >Address: 69.59.189.80
> >Aliases: nullmx.domainmanager.com
> >
> >> smtp.secureserver.net
> >Non-authoritative answer:
> >Name:smtp.where.secureserver.net
> >Address: 208.109.
I not only say it, I have demonstrated it.
BIND is the DNS system we are discussing.
Have not looked to see if that specifically is spec'ed in an RFC.
Yes other DNS implementations do return both the A and CNAME.
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
- Origina
"They are two queries. If mx1 would be an A, it would be returned in the
first query. Since it's a CNAME, the IP is not returned in the MX query."
So. RFC 5321 5.1, Locating the Target Host, says the CNAME is to be
processed.
"The lookup first attempts to locate an MX record associated with
> I'm trying to troubleshoot why we are getting a lot of disabling EDNS
> messages in /var/log/messages.
>
> We are running bind-9.5.0.P2 on a linux box.
>
> Jan 27 11:42:23 ns0 named[27764]: too many timeouts resolving
> 'host2.centmine.com/' (in 'centmine.com'?): disabling EDNS
Please co
I'm trying to troubleshoot why we are getting a lot of disabling EDNS
messages in /var/log/messages.
We are running bind-9.5.0.P2 on a linux box.
Jan 27 11:42:23 ns0 named[27764]: too many timeouts resolving
'host2.centmine.com/' (in 'centmine.com'?): disabling EDNS
Jan 27 11:42:24 ns0 name
Al Stu" wrote:
>How about these two?
>
>> nullmx.domainmanager.com
>Non-authoritative answer:
>Name:mta.dewile.net
>Address: 69.59.189.80
>Aliases: nullmx.domainmanager.com
>
>> smtp.secureserver.net
>Non-authoritative answer:
>Name:smtp.where.secureserver.net
>Address: 208.109.80.149
I've been using an include file for zones common between multiple views,
it
might help in your case too.
Thanks somehow didnt think about this way. Pretty much takes to acceptable
solution :)
wbr
Reinis Rozitis
___
bind-users mailing list
bind-u
Of course I could just copy and paste all the zones also in 'custom' view
but it doubles the configuration size.
I've been using an include file for zones common between multiple views, it
might help in your case too.
Regards,
ChrisB.
--
Quickly find domains on the same IP, NS or MX with http:
Reinis Rozitis wrote:
> view "custom" {
>match-clients { custom-clients; }
>zone "customzone.com" { ... };
> }
>
> view "normal" {
>match-clients { any; };
>zone "customzone.com" { ... };
>
>zone "otherzone.com" { ... };
>zone "otherzone2.com" { ... };
> }
>
>
> The pro
Hello,
sorry if such question has been asked before (couldnt find and the
documentation was unclear), but maybe somebody can help with such issue or
clarify:
Do you need (and there is no workarround) to specify all the zones in all
views?
To be specific:
1. I have Bind (9.4.3) with bunch
On 27.01.09 08:46, Al Stu wrote:
> So then you disagree that the following example returns a valid address
> record for srv1?
>
> srv1 300 IN A 1.2.3.4
> mx1 300 IN CNAME srv1.xyz.com.
> @ 300 IN MX 1 mx1.xyz.com.
>
> 1) Select Target Host:
> The MX query for xyz.com delivers mx1.xyz.com wh
So then you disagree that the following example returns a valid address
record for srv1?
srv1 300 IN A 1.2.3.4
mx1 300 IN CNAME srv1.xyz.com.
@ 300 IN MX 1 mx1.xyz.com.
1) Select Target Host:
The MX query for xyz.com delivers mx1.xyz.com which is a CNAME.
2) Get Target Host Address:
The A
The easy way to block people trying to DoS you, without needing a firewall, is
to just null route their IP: "add route 1.2.3.4 127.0.0.1". Of course this
blocks ALL traffic from that IP, but in most cases the IP trying to DoS you is
someone you don't care about anyway. If you have an authoritati
Looking at the publically available parts of SunSolve there are at least
bug reports about it.
Requires Support Contract tmp_mkdir()/xmemfs_mkdir() inconsistent with other
xxxfs_mkdir() functions. | Open in a new window
bug 6253984
http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-1-625398
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Luis Silva wrote:
Hi all,
I'm having a question related to querying external servers that hope you
could answer me. I'm sending a iterative query for an external server and
the server is sending a referral answer but only with the authoritive name
servers. After that, i sen
On 26.01.09 17:09, Todd Snyder wrote:
> I am trying to wrap my head around a weird configuration I ran across
> today, and see if my assumptions are correct.
>
> Working with the TLD .testdomain.
>
> We have the record:
>
> test2.testdomain. IN NS ns01.blahblah.testdomain.
>
>
>
In message , Michael van Elst writes:
> Barry Margolin writes:
>
> >customer.com. IN MX 10 mx.yourdomain.com.
> >mx.yourdomain.com. IN CNAME mx.outsourcer.com.
> >mx.outsourcer.com. IN A ...
>
> That's just the same as
>
> | customer.com. IN MX 10 mx.outsourcer.com.
> | mx.outsourcer.com. IN A
> > On 23.01.09 23:06, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > Why don't you just use normal reverse DNS:
> > >
> > > zone for 1.1.1.in-addr.arpa
> > >
> > > 1 IN PTR metis.local.
> > > IN PTR bob-www-sol-l01.local.
> >
> > accorging to the above, metis.local is a CNAME, so the
> > reverse should point to
On Jan 27 2009, Barry Margolin wrote:
In article ,
Jeff Justice wrote:
Without getting into how I managed to accomplish this, I have wound up
with a secondary DNS that has incorrect information in it but the
serial numbers are the same as on the master.
So, my question is: how can I get
Barry Margolin writes:
>customer.com. IN MX 10 mx.yourdomain.com.
>mx.yourdomain.com. IN CNAME mx.outsourcer.com.
>mx.outsourcer.com. IN A ...
That's just the same as
| customer.com. IN MX 10 mx.outsourcer.com.
| mx.outsourcer.com. IN A ...
except to people with half-a-knowledge about DNS quer
"Al Stu" writes:
>"No one is saying a CNAME is not permitted in response to a MX query."
>Well good then, we agree.
Hey troll. Go back to the shadow. You shall not pass!
--
--
Michael van Elst
Internet: mlel...@serpens.de
"A pote
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:50:51AM +0100,
Jan Buchholz <96de...@googlemail.com> wrote
a message of 38 lines which said:
> i think disable queries at the root-zone for not internal networks
> is another answer for this problem .
Good practices about this attack (with specific BIND advice) is
al
On Jan 26, 2009, at 11:27 PM, David Ford wrote:
hand because each line isn't strictly well-formed per RFC. If every
vendor was as utterly asinine about absolutist conformance, sure, we'd
have a lot less mess out there, but we'd have a lot less forward
movement as well as a lot more fractioning
Hallo,
i think disable queries at the root-zone for not internal networks is
another answer for this problem .
---
Jan
2009/1/27, Jukka Pakkanen :
>
> "Tony Toews [MVP]" kirjoitti
> viestissä:...
>> Noel Butler wrote:
>>
>> >Surely windows can block access to an inbound IP request from "some I
Hi all,
I'm having a question related to querying external servers that hope you
could answer me. I'm sending a iterative query for an external server and
the server is sending a referral answer but only with the authoritive name
servers. After that, i send a query A asking the nameservers ip addr
In message <10b3763032c94ae2ba4900b3137d1...@ahsnbw1>, "Al Stu" writes:
>
> The paragraph you cite regarding "LOCAL has a alias and the alias is listed
> in the MX records for REMOTE..." is a peripery issue which is handled by not
> doing that.
Them why are you complaining? The error
"Tony Toews [MVP]" kirjoitti
viestissä:...
Noel Butler wrote:
>Surely windows can block access to an inbound IP request from "some IP"
>to local udp port 53 ?
Not the firewall software built into Windows 2003 Server.
>If not, you know what my next reply will be don't you :)
Yeah, well swi
44 matches
Mail list logo
