On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Bill Owens wrote:
> This is one of the weirder ones I've seen. . . there are TXT and MX records
> for ic.fbi.gov, both correctly signed:
>
> ...
> However, that NSEC3 record is not signed.
FWIW, DNSViz checks the chain of trust for authenticated
denial-of-existe
The SOA RNAME should work:
fbi.gov.600INSOAns1.fbi.gov. dns-admin.fbi.gov.
2013071601 7200 3600 2592000 43200
In my years as a DNS administrator, about 50% of the time I tried to
send e-mail to the SOA RNAME, that mail was returned as undeliverable.
I never have trusted tha
On 18/07/13 14:35, Barry S. Finkel wrote:
The SOA RNAME should work:
fbi.gov.600INSOAns1.fbi.gov. dns-admin.fbi.gov.
2013071601 7200 3600 2592000 43200
In my years as a DNS administrator, about 50% of the time I tried to
send e-mail to the SOA RNAME, that mail was returned
Hey there folks,
I know that for the following record in a zone file:
host.example.com.
--
John Miller
Systems Engineer
Brandeis University
johnm...@brandeis.edu
(781) 736-4619
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsu
My apologies--sent mid-message!
I know that for the following record in example.com's zone file:
host.example.com. IN CNAME otherhost
BIND will return:
host.example.com. IN CNAME otherhost.example.com.
Is this behavior required anywhere in the RFCs, or would
host.example.com. IN CNAME othe
On Jul 18, 2013, at 1:18 PM, John Miller wrote:
> I know that for the following record in example.com's zone file:
>
> host.example.com. IN CNAME otherhost
>
> BIND will return:
>
> host.example.com. IN CNAME otherhost.example.com.
Assuming $ORIGIN is set to example.com, but yes.
> Is this
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Charles Swiger wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2013, at 1:18 PM, John Miller wrote:
> > I know that for the following record in example.com's zone file:
> >
> > host.example.com. IN CNAME otherhost
> >
> > BIND will return:
> >
> > host.example.com. IN CNAME otherhost.exam
Are you asking if the target of a CNAME need be an FQDN if $ORIGIN is defined?
If so, no, I use short names (no trailing dot) all the time.
From: John Miller [mailto:johnm...@brandeis.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 05:49 PM
To: Bind Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: RFC requirements for relat
In article ,
John Miller wrote:
> I think what I was getting at was whether appending $ORIGIN to an
> unqualified target--only talking target, not label--was _required_ by the
> RFCs, and if so, the RFC/section. I'll read through 'em; was just hoping
> someone knew the answer off the top of the
>I think what I was getting at was whether appending $ORIGIN to an
>unqualified target--only talking target, not label--was _required_ by the
>RFCs, and if so, the RFC/section. I'll read through 'em; was just hoping
>someone knew the answer off the top of their head.
RFC 1034, page 34.
R's,
John
On 07/18/2013 06:07 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
In article ,
John Miller wrote:
I think what I was getting at was whether appending $ORIGIN to an
unqualified target--only talking target, not label--was _required_ by the
RFCs, and if so, the RFC/section. I'll read through 'em; was just hoping
Hi Ryan,
Sorry I wasn't more clear in my original post. Barry hit the nail on
the head: I was curious if the RFCs required BIND to append $ORIGIN to
targets that aren't fully qualified. Sounds like they do.
I appreciate the help!
John
On 07/18/2013 05:59 PM, Novosielski, Ryan wrote:
A
On 07/18/2013 06:07 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
In article ,
John Miller wrote:
I think what I was getting at was whether appending $ORIGIN to an
unqualified target--only talking target, not label--was _required_ by the
RFCs, and if so, the RFC/section. I'll read through 'em; was just hoping
13 matches
Mail list logo
