FAQs

WebReactor Networks bind at webreactor.net
Thu Mar 7 01:51:22 UTC 2002



> you might want to flesh out the "CNAME and other data" errors section,
> and there should probably be a mention of the fact that an MX record
> must point to a canonical hostname (ie it can't point to a CNAME).

Please also mention that an MX record cannot point to an IP address.  I see
this occasionally.  Though most mail servers will cope with it, some cannot
as this is not RFC 974/1033/1034/1035 compliant.

Thanks.  - John R. S.


> From: Will Yardley <william-nospam-newdream-net at no.spam.veggiechinese.net>
> Organization: Newdream Network
> Newsgroups: comp.protocols.dns.bind
> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 00:12:54 GMT
> To: comp-protocols-dns-bind at isc.org
> Subject: Re: FAQs
> 
> In article <a5t0t6$k1o at pub3.rc.vix.com>, Doug Barton wrote:
>> 
>> Well, it took longer than I thought to get to this, but I have the
>> first draft ready to go. It's not complete, but there is enough there
>> to give y'all an idea of where I'm going with it. I'm interested in
>> comments, suggestions, expansion on answers, additional URL's, etc. I
>> currentely have the following:
> 
> looks good so far.  a couple comments (sorry for the delayed response;
> i've been out of town):
> 
> 1)
> 
> q. I'm having problems BIND on Windows
> 
> a. As they say on TV, "I don't do windows." Sorry, you'll have to find
> help elsewhere.
> 
> probably not the most helpful answer, since the scope of the newsgroup
> DOES include BIND on windoze.  since this faq purports to be the faq for
> the bind-users newsgroup, this answer should be more accurate (even if
> you / i dislike windows).
> 
> 2)
> 
> q. Why is nslookup evil?
> 
> a. Ok . . . technically nslookup is not evil. In fact, if you're
> working on a problem involving the local system resolver, it's a good
> tool to use since it uses the resolver in all its glory.......
> 
> perhaps someone can point out the articles in the archives that point
> out some of the actual problems that can result from using nslookup as
> opposed to host or dig.  there are a few cases where nslookup actually
> reports inaccurate or misleading information.
> 
> i can't find the article, but here is the text:
> http://veggiechinese.net/nslookup_sucks.txt
> 
> attribution is gone, and i didn't write any of it, but it provides some
> comments as to why nslookup shouldn't be used.
> 
> 3)
> 
> you might want to flesh out the "CNAME and other data" errors section,
> and there should probably be a mention of the fact that an MX record
> must point to a canonical hostname (ie it can't point to a CNAME).
> 
> 4)
> q. How do I point www.example.com to example.com?
> 
> a. This question is usually asked the other way around. "How do I
> point my domain to www.mydomain?" The correct answer (and the only way
> that works) is to do it the other way around. Set up your A, MX, etc.
> records for your domain, then set up a CNAME for www, like this:
> 
> www        CNAME    example.com.
> 
> it's also correct to do:
> 
> www        IN  A    10.3.32.4
> 
> how you do it is really a matter of style, so i don't know if it's quite
> correct to say that's the ONLY way to do it.  while CNAME records can be
> useful if you know how to use them correctly, i've found it's better to
> encourage people not to use them (if they don't know how to use them
> correctly, or if they don't completely understand the implications),
> since errors involving CNAMEs are some of the most common errors you see
> around.
> 
> -- 
> No copies, please.
> To reply privately, simply reply; don't remove anything.
> 
> 



More information about the bind-users mailing list