In article ,
Kevin Darcy wrote:
> On 3/20/2010 5:29 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> > ANY queries are supposed to be used for debugging not for
> > normal operations.
> >
> >
>
> At the risk of nitpicking your use of the term "supposed to be"...
>
> "ANY" queries (aka QTYPE=*), have pretty much be
Kevin Darcy wrote:
> But I believe the QTYPE was
> _originally_ intended to be a robust mechanism for fetching multiple
> RRsets at a time.It just didn't work out that way...
PowerDNS Recursor uses ANY to retrieve both A and records in one query:
http://lwn.net/Articles/275823/
| * Full IP
On 3/20/2010 5:29 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
ANY queries are supposed to be used for debugging not for
normal operations.
At the risk of nitpicking your use of the term "supposed to be"...
"ANY" queries (aka QTYPE=*), have pretty much been reduced to a mere
debugging tool, because of the stan
--Original Message-
From: bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org
[mailto:bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org] On Behalf
Of Mark Andrews
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 9:29 PM
To: Tony Finch
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: T_ANY
In message ,
Tony Fi
nch writes
In message , Tony Fi
nch writes:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010, Glenn English wrote:
> >
> > Just why qmail reports a T_ANY failure as a CNAME failure, I also don't
> > know.
>
> This is a bug in qmail. It tries to canonicalize domains in the SMTP
> envelope of outgoing messages. It originally did this b
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010, Glenn English wrote:
>
> Just why qmail reports a T_ANY failure as a CNAME failure, I also don't
> know.
This is a bug in qmail. It tries to canonicalize domains in the SMTP
envelope of outgoing messages. It originally did this by performing CNAME
queries on each domain, but t
On Mar 20, 2010, at 10:12 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Have you compiled qmail yourself?
Thanks, Florian, but it's fixed. The problem was that my PIX firewall's IDS
blocks T_ANY queries by default, and Yahoo's qmail does T_ANY queries. I turned
the block off in the PIX.
I'm told that qmail '
* Glenn English:
>>> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at yahoo.com.
> Both servers are Debian lenny, 'named -v' says BIND 9.5.1-P3, and
> bind's config check says it's OK. But it has nothing to do with any
> of that, I think, because the query works from inside.
Have you compiled qmail yoursel
On Mar 19, 2010, at 3:35 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> PIX, you say? They used to have a problem with DNS UDP packets over 512
> bytes. (Well, it didn't have a "problem", it just blocked them. I'm not
> sure what, if any code version fixes this. (I don't have any these days.)
6.3 fixed it. The comm
> From: Glenn English
> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:15:38 -0600
> Sender: bind-users-bounces+oberman=es@lists.isc.org
>
>
> On Mar 19, 2010, at 2:30 PM, Lightner, Jeff wrote:
>
> > Maybe it's a difference between udp and tcp in your firewall?
> >
> > For most queries udp 53 is used but for
On Mar 19, 2010, at 2:30 PM, Lightner, Jeff wrote:
> Maybe it's a difference between udp and tcp in your firewall?
>
> For most queries udp 53 is used but for long packets it might switch to
> tcp 53 - since you're doing an any you're going to get a lot more data.
Don't think so. The router's
Maybe it's a difference between udp and tcp in your firewall?
For most queries udp 53 is used but for long packets it might switch to
tcp 53 - since you're doing an any you're going to get a lot more data.
-Original Message-
From: bind-users-bounces+jlightner=water@lists.isc.org
[m
12 matches
Mail list logo
