Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:35:50 +0400 From: "Artem Koutchine" <matrix@ipform.ru> To: "Jim Weeks" <jim@siteplus.net>, "Andy Wolf" <Andy.Wolf@nextra.de> Cc: "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: <038e01c02a11$e3121e80$0c00a8c0@ipform.ru> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009290820270.272-100000@veager.siteplus.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: "Jim Weeks" <jim@siteplus.net> > > On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Andy Wolf wrote: > > > We use two A records now and therefor accept redundancy. The reverse lookup > > of course can only point to one of the labels. > > The general consensus throughout the industry seems to be that C names are > evil. > > I have never been bitten by just using A names. > I have. Revers lookup might fail and some secure smtp server and other daemons do not allow access if reverse lookup failes. For example: sux IN A 192.168.0.1 mustdie IN A 192.168.0.1 in the reverse zone we say 1 IN PTR sux nslookup mustdie gives 192.168.0.1 nslookup 192.168.0.1 gives 'sux' Artem To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?038e01c02a11$e3121e80$0c00a8c0>