Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 08:55:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Weeks <jim@siteplus.net> To: Artem Koutchine <matrix@ipform.ru> Cc: Andy Wolf <Andy.Wolf@nextra.de>, James Wyatt <jwyatt@rwsystems.net>, Jan Knepper <jan@digitaldaemon.com>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DNS: having domain1.com and domain1.net point to the same IP. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009290850070.335-100000@veager.siteplus.net> In-Reply-To: <038e01c02a11$e3121e80$0c00a8c0@ipform.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Artem Koutchine wrote: > From: "Jim Weeks" <jim@siteplus.net> > > > > On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Andy Wolf wrote: > > > > > We use two A records now and therefor accept redundancy. The reverse > lookup > > > of course can only point to one of the labels. > > > > The general consensus throughout the industry seems to be that C names are > > evil. > > > > I have never been bitten by just using A names. > > > > I have. Revers lookup might fail and some secure smtp server and other > daemons > do not allow access if reverse lookup failes. For example: What type of smtp setup would fail because the reverse lookup name did not match that of the virtual domain? Do you have an example of a daemon that would choke? Jim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0009290850070.335-100000>