From owner-freebsd-isp  Fri Sep 29  5:56: 9 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org
Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 91CD937B42C; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 05:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from veager.siteplus.net (1Cust36.tnt9.chattanooga.tn.da.uu.net [63.39.120.36])
	by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA25545;
	Fri, 29 Sep 2000 05:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
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.
In-Reply-To: <038e01c02a11$e3121e80$0c00a8c0@ipform.ru>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009290850070.335-100000@veager.siteplus.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org


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-isp" in the body of the message