Re: BIND 9.6 Flaw - CNAME vs. A Record in MX Records are NOT "Illegal"

2009-01-30 Thread Danny Thomas
Al Stu wrote: History is fraught with individuals or a few being ridiculed for putting forth that which goes against the conventional wisdom of the masses and so called experts, only to be vindicated once the masses and so called experts get their head out where the sun is shining and exposed

Re: BIND 9.6 Flaw - CNAME vs. A Record in MX Records are NOT "Illegal"

2009-01-30 Thread Noel Butler
On Sat, 2009-01-31 at 16:55, Al Stu wrote: > History is fraught with individuals or a few being ridiculed for putting > forth that which goes against the conventional wisdom of the masses and so You don't get to speak for anyone else but yourself, just because you believe in your own trolling

Re: BIND 9.6 Flaw - CNAME vs. A Record in MX Records are NOT "Illegal"

2009-01-30 Thread Al Stu
History is fraught with individuals or a few being ridiculed for putting forth that which goes against the conventional wisdom of the masses and so called experts, only to be vindicated once the masses and so called experts get their head out where the sun is shining and exposed to the light o

Re: where is libbind???

2009-01-30 Thread Evan Hunt
> I would like to request that libbind install a pkg-config file (perhaps > $prefix/lib/pkgconfig/libbind.pc). Thanks. libbind-b...@isc.org and libbind-sugg...@isc.org would be the best places to send bug reports and suggestions, though, so we can keep track of them. -- Evan Hunt -- evan_h...@i

Re: where is libbind???

2009-01-30 Thread Chris Hills
Mark Andrews wrote: The release announcement for libbind-6.0b1 should be out shortly. The whole process took a bit longer than we were expecting. We were trying to get libbind out before BIND 9.6.0 got out. Mark Mark I would like to request that libbi

Bind-9.5.1 logging

2009-01-30 Thread Peter Fraser
Hi All I'm trying to configure bind-9.5 logging to help troubleshoot a problem. I put this in named.conf logging { channel myfile { file "/etc/namedb/dns.log"; severity info; print-time yes; print-severity yes; print-category yes; };

Re: BIND 9.6 Flaw - CNAME vs. A Record in MX Records are NOT "Illegal"

2009-01-30 Thread David Sparks
Michael Milligan wrote: > You just don't get it. You are off wandering around in the weeds. > > Read the tail end of Chapter 5 in the book "DNS and BIND" describing the > MX selection algorithm in layman's terms to (perhaps) understand why > having MX records referencing CNAMEs is bad. > > It ma

Re: BIND 9.6 Flaw - CNAME vs. A Record in MX Records are NOT "Illegal"

2009-01-30 Thread Michael Milligan
You just don't get it. You are off wandering around in the weeds. Read the tail end of Chapter 5 in the book "DNS and BIND" describing the MX selection algorithm in layman's terms to (perhaps) understand why having MX records referencing CNAMEs is bad. It may work right now for you, but referenc

RE: BIND 9.6 Flaw - CNAME vs. A Record in MX Records are NOT "Illegal"

2009-01-30 Thread Ben Bridges
The authoritative name servers for nullmx.domainmanager.com are ns1.domainmanager.com and ns2.domainmanager.com. They are domain parking name servers. They return 64.40.103.249 (or at least something close to that) to the query for any A record. The real address of mta.dewile.net is 69.59.189.80