Re: about the additional section

2011-09-02 Thread Florian Weimer
* 风河: > i just want to make sure about it, and will the client resolver use the > additional records directly? It is somewhat difficult to make correct use of the additional section. For example, Exim tried to do it, but they had to remove the code because it caused spurious mail delivery failure

Re: Re: about the additional section

2011-09-02 Thread 刘明星：）
address of the nameservers. 2011-09-02 Mingxing 发件人： Doug Barton 发送时间： 2011-09-02 12:50:00 收件人： 风河 抄送： bind-users 主题： Re: about the additional section On 09/01/2011 21:23, 风河 wrote: > i just want to make sure about it, The rules for what is and is not included in the ADDITIO

Re: about the additional section

2011-09-01 Thread Doug Barton
On 09/01/2011 21:23, 风河 wrote: > i just want to make sure about it, The rules for what is and is not included in the ADDITIONAL section are not only not strict, they vary from server to server, and sometimes they vary with different versions of the same server. > and will the client resolver use

Re: about the additional section

2011-09-01 Thread 风河
i just want to make sure about it, and will the client resolver use the additional records directly? 在 2011-9-2 下午12:06，"Doug Barton" 写道： > On 09/01/2011 20:45, 风河 wrote: >> But why this named does returned additional section? > > Rather than focusing on the additional section in dig responses, may

Re: about the additional section

2011-09-01 Thread Doug Barton
On 09/01/2011 20:45, 风河 wrote: > But why this named does returned additional section? Rather than focusing on the additional section in dig responses, maybe you can describe what problem you're trying to solve. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.

Re: about the additional section

2011-09-01 Thread Mark Andrews
In message , =?UTF-8?B?6aOO5rKz?= writes: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > Named doesn't return records tagged as additional in the additional > > section.  This stops the propogation of bogus records.  Note there > > is no requirement for additional records to be

Re: about the additional section

2011-09-01 Thread 风河
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: > Named doesn't return records tagged as additional in the additional > section.  This stops the propogation of bogus records.  Note there > is no requirement for additional records to be added ever.  Glue > records are not additional records e

Re: about the additional section

2011-09-01 Thread Mark Andrews
In message , =?UTF-8?B?6aOO5rKz?= writes: > 2011/9/1 Daniel McDonald : > > On 8/31/11 10:13 PM, "风河" wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> I found that some queries have got the response which has additional > >> section, but some haven't. > >> For example, this query with www.google.com got the

Re: about the additional section

2011-09-01 Thread 风河
2011/9/1 Daniel McDonald : > On 8/31/11 10:13 PM, "风河" wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I found that some queries have got the response which has additional >> section, but some haven't. >> For example, this query with www.google.com got the answer with >> additional section set: >> >> $ dig www.google.co

Re: about the additional section

2011-09-01 Thread Daniel McDonald
On 8/31/11 10:13 PM, "风河" wrote: > Hello, > > I found that some queries have got the response which has additional > section, but some haven't. > For example, this query with www.google.com got the answer with > additional section set: > > $ dig www.google.com > ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 236 > $ dig w

about the additional section

2011-08-31 Thread 风河
Hello, I found that some queries have got the response which has additional section, but some haven't. For example, this query with www.google.com got the answer with additional section set: $ dig www.google.com ; <<>> DiG 9.6.1-P2 <<>> www.google.com ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->