I would like the list details please (either privately or here depending on
the consensus).
Thanks,
Chris
On 29 May 2014 03:50, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> hi there
>
> Couple of friends who work on windows dns server software day to day
> basis and also develop the windows dns software put togethe
I found this is a valid RR:
_spf.yandex.ru. 2768IN TXT "v=spf1
include:_spf-ipv4.yandex.ru include:_spf-ipv6.yandex.ru ~all"
But for A, CNAME, etc, the underline in hostname is invalid.
Does this make a confusion?
Thanks.
___
On 29 May 2014, at 5:50, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> would it be ok to provide the list address here for interested parties to
> join?
Sounds like a great idea to me.
Joe
___
dns-operations mailing list
dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net
https://lists.dns
> I found this is a valid RR:
> _spf.yandex.ru. 2768IN TXT "v=spf1
> include:_spf-ipv4.yandex.ru include:_spf-ipv6.yandex.ru ~all"
> But for A, CNAME, etc, the underline in hostname is invalid.
> Does this make a confusion?
no. next question.
randy
_
Hello,
The url is http://lists.cloudapp.net
Feel free to contact me off-list if you have any questions / issues joining list
Mehmet
> On May 29, 2014, at 1:06, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> I would like the list details please (either privately or here depending on
> the consensus).
>
> Thanks,
>
http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/underscore.html
On 29 May 2014 10:28, "hua peng" wrote:
> I found this is a valid RR:
>
> _spf.yandex.ru. 2768IN TXT "v=spf1
> include:_spf-ipv4.yandex.ru include:_spf-ipv6.yandex.ru ~all"
>
>
> But for A, CNAME, etc, the underline in ho
On May 29, 2014, at 04:24 , hua peng wrote:
> I found this is a valid RR:
>
> _spf.yandex.ru. 2768IN TXT "v=spf1
> include:_spf-ipv4.yandex.ru include:_spf-ipv6.yandex.ru ~all"
>
>
> But for A, CNAME, etc, the underline in hostname is invalid.
> Does this make a conf
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> Host names are only allowed the characters [a-z] (case insensitive), [0-9],
> and [-]. See RFCs 952 and 1123.
>
> Domain names may use any string as a label, so for example the underscore is
> perfectly legal. See RFC 2181.
This is
Phillip,
On May 29, 2014, at 8:17 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> And that is a problem because all numeric names are valid DNS hostnames.
Not really. An all numeric string is a valid DNS _label_, however not all
collections of DNS labels that make up a domain name are valid as a hostname.
S
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:48 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Phillip,
>
> On May 29, 2014, at 8:17 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
> wrote:
>> And that is a problem because all numeric names are valid DNS hostnames.
>
> Not really. An all numeric string is a valid DNS _label_, however not all
> collections
Sorry, hit send rather than reply all just then
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:48 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Phillip,
>
> On May 29, 2014, at 8:17 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
> wrote:
>> And that is a problem because all numeric names are valid DNS hostnames.
>
> Not really. An all numeric string is a
On May 29, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> This implies that ICANN can't delegate an all-numeric TLD, and in fact,
>> ICANN (in section 2.2.1.3.2, sub-section 1.2.1 of the Applicant's Guide
>> Book) states:
> I am rather worried when specifications rely on what is implied rather
If I (reluctantly) accept that DNS names that are not hostnames can have
underscores in them, why does BIND not have an option to allow that, while
still rejecting invalid hostnames? Or have I missed something?
If someone decides to add that feature, I would really like the option to
only add the
On 29 May 2014, at 18:20, Bob Harold wrote:
> If I (reluctantly) accept that DNS names that are not hostnames can have
> underscores in them, why does BIND not have an option to allow that, while
> still rejecting invalid hostnames? Or have I missed something?
I think you have missed something.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 01:20:35PM -0400, Bob Harold wrote:
> If I (reluctantly) accept that DNS names that are not hostnames can have
> underscores in them, why does BIND not have an option to allow that, while
> still rejecting invalid hostnames? Or have I missed something?
BIND allows domain n
Out of curiosity, where did the prohibition of underscores in host names
come from. I'm sure there's a historical reason for it, but I've never
heard it. Or is it really as simple as "RFC 952 only listed thirty seven
characters"
--
William Brown
Messaging Team
Technology Services, WNYR
From: Evan Hunt
> Can I ask what specific problem you're having that would be solved by
this?
Creating DNS entries in BIND for Windows servers with an underscore in the
machine name. The machines were named by others, and I had to make it
work.
Confidentiality Notice:
This electronic m
Thanks to everyone that answered. I did not realize that "check-names"
only checked things it considered "hostnames" and not all DNS names. I
just reread the BIND manual and found:
check-names applies to the owner names of A, and MX records. It also
applies to the
domain names in the RDATA
Bob Harold wrote:
> Thanks to everyone that answered. I did not realize that
> "check-names" only checked things it considered "hostnames" and not
> all DNS names. I just reread the BIND manual and found:
>
> check-names applies to the owner names of A, and MX records.
> It also ap
On 29 May 2014, at 18:56, wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
> Out of curiosity, where did the prohibition of underscores in host names
> come from. I'm sure there's a historical reason for it, but I've never
> heard it. Or is it really as simple as "RFC 952 only listed thirty seven
> characters"
I belie
In message <88f4b55a-26a7-491e-ae4e-b8f40ef49...@rfc1035.com>, Jim Reid writes:
> On 29 May 2014, at 18:56, wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
>
> > Out of curiosity, where did the prohibition of underscores in host names
> > come from. I'm sure there's a historical reason for it, but I've never
> > heard
> On 29 May 2014, at 18:56, wbr...@e1b.org wrote:
>
> > Out of curiosity, where did the prohibition of underscores in host
names
> > come from. I'm sure there's a historical reason for it, but I've never
> > heard it. Or is it really as simple as "RFC 952 only listed
IIRC BIND doesn't permit an A record whose label has a underscore
included, for example, this one:
aa_bb.google.com. 300 IN A 74.125.128.106
what RFC item is it influenced by?
Thanks.
BIND does allow domain names with underscores in them. In fact SRV records use
under
hua peng wrote:
> IIRC BIND doesn't permit an A record whose label has a underscore
> included, for example, this one:
>
> aa_bb.google.com. 300 IN A 74.125.128.106
try this in your named.conf file:
options {
check-names master ignore;
check-names slave ignore;
In message <5387e556.5070...@arcor.de>, hua peng writes:
> IIRC BIND doesn't permit an A record whose label has a underscore
> included, for example, this one:
>
> aa_bb.google.com. 300 IN A 74.125.128.106
>
> what RFC item is it influenced by?
> Thanks.
RFC 952, RFC 112
Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <5387e556.5070...@arcor.de>, hua peng writes:
>> IIRC BIND doesn't permit an A record whose label has a underscore
>> included, for example, this one:
>>
>> aa_bb.google.com. 300 IN A 74.125.128.106
>>
>> what RFC item is it influenced by?
If you want to change the legal syntax of hostnames then write a
RFC. As it stands RFC 952 + RFC 1123 define the legal syntax for
hostnames. Even IDN maps back to RFC 952 + RFC 1123 at the DNS
level. IDN does NOT permit underscore.
Named, by default, allows the lookup any name it is possible t
On Thursday 29 May 2014 00:24, hua peng wrote:
> I found this is a valid RR:
>
> _spf.yandex.ru. 2768IN TXT "v=spf1
> include:_spf-ipv4.yandex.ru include:_spf-ipv6.yandex.ru ~all"
The general geist... feng shui... the way it hangs... (how many languages can
I offend?): ANY O
On 29/05/2014 10:24, hua peng wrote:
I found this is a valid RR:
_spf.yandex.ru. 2768IN TXT "v=spf1
include:_spf-ipv4.yandex.ru include:_spf-ipv6.yandex.ru ~all"
But for A, CNAME, etc, the underline in hostname is invalid.
Does this make a confusion?
Thanks.
Nope, s
In message <538815d5.8000...@ncartron.org>, Nicolas CARTRON writes:
> On 29/05/2014 10:24, hua peng wrote:
> > I found this is a valid RR:
> >
> > _spf.yandex.ru. 2768IN TXT "v=spf1
> > include:_spf-ipv4.yandex.ru include:_spf-ipv6.yandex.ru ~all"
> >
> >
> > But for A, CNAME,
30 matches
Mail list logo
