In message <7737.1316035...@tristatelogic.com>, "Ronald F. Guilmette" writes:
>
> In message <7d9b265c-36bf-40c1-9012-ac0a96fb8...@sackheads.org>, you wrote:
>
> >On Sep 14, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> >
> >> Is there a rule that says how a resolver should behave in cases wher
In message <39634800-7e01-4878-b1a1-cf384c8a6...@mac.com>,
Chuck Swiger wrote:
>On Sep 14, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> In message , you wrote:
>>> Sigh: your mail server is blacklisting email from mac.com.
>>
>> Yes. Sorry about that. Too much spam from there and no indic
On Sep 14, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> In message , you wrote:
>> Sigh: your mail server is blacklisting email from mac.com.
>
> Yes. Sorry about that. Too much spam from there and no indication
> that anybody there gives a damn that that they gush spam. (If you
> find anybod
In message <4e7131a6.3000...@chrysler.com>,
Kevin Darcy wrote:
>Indeed. It should be noted that not only does the graphiteops.com name
>break the "CNAME and other" rule, but it's a *self-referential* CNAME
>(rdata = graphiteops.com), so if one tried to chase it, one could chase
>infinitely.
In message , you wrote:
>Sigh: your mail server is blacklisting email from mac.com.
Yes. Sorry about that. Too much spam from there and no indication
that anybody there gives a damn that that they gush spam. (If you
find anybody who does care, please le me know via the contact form on
my web
On 9/14/2011 5:52 PM, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Sep 14, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
The second part however seems to go more to my question, which is "What is
the resolver supposed to do when some knucklehead breaks the rules and puts
a CNAME in with some other stuff?"
Depends on
with the following header fields:
>
> Message-id: <2be47d87-8417-4055-8466-f47cd7fdb...@mac.com>
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:52:34 -0700
> From: Chuck Swiger
> To: "Ronald F. Guilmette"
> Subject: Re: Proper CNAME interpretation
>
> Your message cannot
On Sep 14, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> The second part however seems to go more to my question, which is "What is
> the resolver supposed to do when some knucklehead breaks the rules and puts
> a CNAME in with some other stuff?"
Depends on which query one issued. The very next
In message <7d9b265c-36bf-40c1-9012-ac0a96fb8...@sackheads.org>, you wrote:
>On Sep 14, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>> Is there a rule that says how a resolver should behave in cases where
>> there is both an A record and also a CNAME record for the same FQDN?
>> Which one shou
On Sep 14, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> Is there a rule that says how a resolver should behave in cases where
> there is both an A record and also a CNAME record for the same FQDN?
> Which one should take precedence, the A or the CNAME?
RFC 1034, Section 3.6.2: "If a CNAME RR
Last night, it appeared to me that nslookup was resolving the name
"graphiteops.com" to IP address 72.52.4.95.
Today however it is no longer doing that, reporting instead:
% 127.0.0.1
Address:127.0.0.1#53
Non-authoritative answer:
graphiteops.com canonical name = graphiteops.com.
G
11 matches
Mail list logo
