cname quick question
mayer at gis.net
Wed Mar 7 03:46:41 UTC 2001
At 06:21 PM 3/6/01, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> writes:
> >Like Tal Dayan, you are being obtuse or deliberately provocative.
> >Please *read* the extract from RFC1034 above. Now *think* about what
> >it says and what that means. Pay particular attention to the last
> >sentence. Hint: suppose clueless.example.com was a CNAME pointing at
> >moron.example.net. That CNAME is cached by some name server. It can
> >safely use that cached CNAME without having to query the example.com
> >name servers to check that no other record types exist for
>It would seem that the problem is political and not technical.
No, the problem IS technical. A large number of problems are now showing
up where people are getting transfer errors when trying to update the slave servers.
More information about the bind-users