In message <4a5e300c.7050...@gmail.com>, Dave Sparro writes:
> --===2296683873387296090==
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 05:50:02AM -0700,
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 05:50:02AM -0700,
Fr34k wrote
a message of 119 lines which said:
There should be one and only one PTR for that IP.
On 10.07.09 22:40, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
No. No good reason fo
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 05:50:02AM -0700,
> Fr34k wrote
> a message of 119 lines which said:
>
> > There should be one and only one PTR for that IP.
On 10.07.09 22:40, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> No. No good reason for such restriction.
While from DNS' point of view there is no reason to
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 05:50:02AM -0700,
Fr34k wrote
a message of 119 lines which said:
> There should be one and only one PTR for that IP.
No. No good reason for such restriction.
> $ host 196.7.126.38
>From a machine with a proper Internet connection (i.e. no stupid
firewall blocking DNS
Yeah, and what Kevin said :)
Another example for why friends don't let friends use more than one PTR per IP
address.
- Original Message
From: Kevin Darcy
To: bind-us...@isc.org
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 12:35:54 PM
Subject: Re: Truncated, retrying in TCP on Reverse lookup
The SERVFAIL/timeout is probably because the original poster's firewall
is misconfigured and doesn't allow TCP DNS transactions.
- Kevin
Hello,
As I understand it, there are so many PTRs for that IP address, that DNS will
change protocol from UDP to TCP.
So, the message you are getting is informational because of this protocol
change.
See the long list of PTRs below.
There should be one and only one PTR for that IP.
Making an SM
7 matches
Mail list logo
