Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 09:00:26 +0200 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Broken resolver/named Message-ID: <19970824090026.RY16396@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199708240300.MAA00846@word.smith.net.au>; from Mike Smith on Aug 24, 1997 12:30:55 %2B0930 References: <199708240019.BAA00819@awfulhak.org> <199708240300.MAA00846@word.smith.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Mike Smith wrote: > I don't understand how this would be useful. If you say "x", and "x" > is not a local name, you _must_ consult someone else to determine if > it's a valid name at all. How else are you supposed to know one way or > the other? By looking whether there's at least one dot in the name. I think resolvers used to behave like this back some time ago. So, x would only be tried as x.search.domain1 x.search.domain2 and then given up, while x.foo would be tried as x.foo.search.domain1 x.foo.search.domain2 x.foo I think this is reasonable since there are no A/MX/CNAME records to be expected for a TLD (i.e. a TLD is always only be used as part of the recursion), so it could be special-cased. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970824090026.RY16396>