On 8/18/18, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 08/18/2018 04:53 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
>> In article ,
>> Grant Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/18/2018 07:25 AM, Bob McDonald wrote:
I don't think anyone hates nslookup (well maybe a few do ) I
suppose the immense dislike stems from the fact that it
On 08/18/2018 04:53 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
In article ,
Grant Taylor wrote:
On 08/18/2018 07:25 AM, Bob McDonald wrote:
I don't think anyone hates nslookup (well maybe a few do ) I
suppose the immense dislike stems from the fact that it's the default
utility under Windows. Folks who use
In article ,
Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 08/18/2018 07:25 AM, Bob McDonald wrote:
> > I don't think anyone hates nslookup (well maybe a few do ) I
> > suppose the immense dislike stems from the fact that it's the default
> > utility under Windows. Folks who use dig as their default realize that
Extra complexity -- "man dig" yields 289 lines while "man nslookup"
yields only 160 lines.
Also, dig is not simply an extension of nslookup (which I long ago
abbreviated to nsl), but is significantly different, so it using it
involves the human analog of a cache miss.
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 20:12:0
When I started using Linux almost 20 years ago, I think there was only
nslookup, and no dig. So by habit, I tend to use it unless the extra
power of dig outweighs its extra complexity. I don't remember what I
used on Windows back when I was regularly using both.
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 11:42:20 -0600
On 08/18/2018 07:25 AM, Bob McDonald wrote:
I don't think anyone hates nslookup (well maybe a few do ) I
suppose the immense dislike stems from the fact that it's the default
utility under Windows. Folks who use dig as their default realize that
when used properly, dig provides much more functi
> I know that most of you hate nslookup but I have been using it since the
> 90's and it's my go-to utility. I get the same responses whether I use
> Dig or nslookup. If nslookup doesn't return what I am looking for, I do
> use Dig also.
I don't think anyone hates nslookup (well maybe a few do ) I
Seems ok here using: dig +trace srv _minecraft._tcp.skyblock.mc-game.us.
mc-game.us. 3600IN NS ns1.sleepyvalley.net.
mc-game.us. 3600IN NS sdns2.ovh.ca.
;; Received 113 bytes from 156.154.126.70#53(156.154.126.70) in 168 ms
_minecraft._tcp.skyb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Fri, 2018-08-17 at 12:27 -0500, Thomas Strike wrote:
> I need a 2nd pair of eyes on this one.
Works for me.
dig _minecraft._tcp.skyblock.mc-game.us srv
;; ANSWER SECTION:
_minecraft._tcp.skyblock.mc-game.us. 300 IN SRV 0 5 25567 skyblock.mc-
ga
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:28 PM Thomas Strike
wrote:
> I have created a SRV record for a new subdomain A record. I set nslookup
> to use my DNS server directly and when I query for the A record it
> returns it. When I set type=SRV and ask for the srv record nothing is
> returned.
>
> My SRV recor
10 matches
Mail list logo
