On 02-May-22 09:02, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 03:39:33PM +0200,
Bjørn Mork wrote
a message of 14 lines which said:
Which problems do LOC solve?
I remember adding LOC records for fun?() in the previous millennium when
RFC 1876 was fresh out of the press. But even
On 2/05/2022 8:13 pm, Reindl Harald wrote:
you want 127.0.0.1 act as your resolver no matter what
Well, not always... If your local BIND service isn't a recursive
resolver
irrelevant in context of this topic and worth exactly the same as
saying "if you don't use bind at all" and honestly i
Fun is a sufficient reason.
Definitely.
IATA airport codes to LOC:
% dig +short CDG.air.jpmens.net LOC
49 0 46.073 N 2 33 0.000 E 119.00m 1m 1m 10m
and more fun with an associated TXT:
% dig +short CDG.air.jpmens.net TXT
"cc:FR; m:Paris; t:large, n:Charles de Gaulle International Airport
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 03:39:33PM +0200,
Bjørn Mork wrote
a message of 14 lines which said:
> Which problems do LOC solve?
>
> I remember adding LOC records for fun?() in the previous millennium when
> RFC 1876 was fresh out of the press. But even back then paranoia
> finally took over, and
On 01-May-22 05:03, Bob Harold wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 9:39 AM Bjørn Mork wrote:
Timothe Litt writes:
> Anyhow, it's not clear exactly what problem you're asking LOC (or
> anything) to solve.
Which problems do LOC solve?
I remember adding LOC records for fun?()
> On 2 May 2022, at 18:13, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 01.05.22 um 23:54 schrieb Nick Tait via bind-users:
>> On 1/05/2022 9:13 pm, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> Am 01.05.22 um 06:38 schrieb Nick Tait via bind-users:
I'm not 100% sure, but I wonder if disabling systemd-resolved may create
Am 01.05.22 um 23:54 schrieb Nick Tait via bind-users:
On 1/05/2022 9:13 pm, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 01.05.22 um 06:38 schrieb Nick Tait via bind-users:
I'm not 100% sure, but I wonder if disabling systemd-resolved may
create issues if, for example, you are using netplan with
systemd-network
7 matches
Mail list logo