VS: VS: CNAME / TXT

2020-08-24 Thread Jukka Pakkanen
In their (mailgun) instructions to the client. And then the client wanted us to include those to his zone. CNAME of course is useful in general, but like I wrote, *here* it is not needed. Jukka On 23.08.20 09:59, Jukka Pakkanen wrote: >Yes, I think the whole CNAME is useless here anyway. C

Re: VS: CNAME / TXT

2020-08-24 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas
On 23.08.20 09:59, Jukka Pakkanen wrote: Yes, I think the whole CNAME is useless here anyway. CNAME is useful, but it does not (and can not) work the way you want. These were the recommendations of this service provider, mailgun though.. where? the CNAME issue is long known and clarifies in

VS: CNAME / TXT

2020-08-23 Thread Jukka Pakkanen
Yes, I think the whole CNAME is useless here anyway. These were the recommendations of this service provider, mailgun though.. Thx, Jukka Lähettäjä: bind-users Puolesta Ben Croswell Lähetetty: 23. elokuuta 2020 2:24 Vastaanottaja: ML BIND Users Aihe: Re: CNAME / TXT If you uncomment that mg C

VS: CNAME / TXT

2020-08-23 Thread Jukka Pakkanen
401 characters… so that’a another problem. Thx. Lähettäjä: Kyongseon West Lähetetty: 23. elokuuta 2020 3:16 Vastaanottaja: Jukka Pakkanen Kopio: bind-us...@isc.org Aihe: Re: CNAME / TXT How long is the character in txt line? If it’s longer than 255, it will show that exact error. Exact thing