From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Feb 17 11: 5:53 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mgw1.MEIway.com (mgw1.meiway.com [212.73.210.75]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F2C37B503 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 11:05:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from sv.Go2France.com (sv.meiway.com [212.73.210.79]) by mgw1.MEIway.com (Postfix Relay Hub) with ESMTP id 7B7476A901 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 20:05:50 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20010217195712.0665c950@mail.Go2France.com> X-Sender: lconrad%Go2France.com@mail.Go2France.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 20:03:35 +0100 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Len Conrad Subject: Re: CNAME lookup problem In-Reply-To: <20010217120024.A43194@dhcp101054.res-hall.nwu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >Feb 17 17:20:10 rockfordschools qmail: 982430410.860700 delivery >214: deferral: >CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily._(#4.4.3)/ > >Any ideas? I tried recompiling Qmail, but no luck. Thanks! If Stable has BIND 8.2.3, 8.2.3 is not as sloppy as earlier version in applying "RFC 1034 Section 3.6.2. Aliases and canonical names" What you got away with earlier, won't pass now. This CNAME has been raised many times in the ISC BIND list recently as everybody has moved up from 8.2.2. A lot of people with illegal CNAME usage got caught. I recommend that you drop all CNAME's and use A records. I think CNAMEs are just "one more knob to twist" on BIND setup for curious know twisters and most knob twisters get it wrong ("hey, I don't have any CNAME records, yet. I better put some in"), as well an increasing network traffic. Lose the CNAME records. Len http://BIND8NT.MEIway.com : Binary for ISC BIND 8.2.3 for NT4 & W2K http://IMGate.MEIway.com : Build free, hi-perf, anti-spam mail gateways To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message