Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:04:14 -0800 From: jekillen <jekillen@prodigy.net> To: Derek Ragona <derek@computinginnovations.com> Cc: User Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: named mystery Message-ID: <270b3a70a0dd0477353e5bf978ba6a34@prodigy.net> In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20071211055812.024efda0@mail.computinginnovations.com> References: <1049f53fe18e8533721516ed7dc217ed@prodigy.net> <6.0.0.22.2.20071211055812.024efda0@mail.computinginnovations.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 11, 2007, at 4:09 AM, Derek Ragona wrote: > At 12:57 AM 12/10/2007, jekillen wrote: >> Hello: >> I have two name servers for four domains. >> The primary name server is running FreeBSD v 6.0 >> and the secondary is running v 6.2. >> I have an MX record for each of the four registered >> domains. I have set up Postfix to act as a smart host >> mail hub (the MX host). One of the named record >> database is for one of the sites. When I try to send >> an E-mail from this message to list e-mail address. The messages >> bounce for dns lookup failure. >> The name that is being looked up is >> =A0<mxhost>.<domainName>.<tld>.<targetDomainName>.<tld> >> >> Some how the two names are being mashed together and then >> looked up, causing the resolution failure. >> >> dig targetDomainName.com -t MX produces the record according to >> my ISP's name servers, which is the mashed version. Possibly they >> have it wrong? Someone is screwing up the lookup for this. >> >> There was a period missing after the MX host name record. >> I added that and rebooted the machine with the primary name >> server just to insure that named got the change and checked the >> secondary record and it has the change >> >> I did dig @targerDomainName.com -t MX and got my secondary >> name server responding. I checked the primary server to see that >> it is actually running at the time, it was and is. >> but the bak file on the secondary server has >> <clip> >> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0IN=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0MX=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A010=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0host.domain.t= ld. >> $ORIGIN targetDomain.tld. >> </clip> >> >> when the record on primary server is >> <clip> >> @=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0IN=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0MX=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A010=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0host.domain.tld.= >> </clip> >> @ in this context should reference the domain this >> file is for. >> If anyone is a wiz at dns record and problems can you >> make any suggestions or recommendations? >> thank you in advance >> Jeff K > > Jeff, > > I just checked how my DNS files look on two 6.2 servers.=A0 The = primary=20 > zone files will have the: > @ > while the secondary zone files will not have these. > > In my zone files the MX appears on the primary as a the lines: > ; MX Record > @=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 IN MX=A0=A0 10=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= mail.mydomain.com. > > Note the last period after the domain suffix is there to show it is a=20= > fully qualified name, with that name defined earlier in this zone=20 > file. > > On the secondary server the zone files has: > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = MX=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 10 mail.mydomain.com. > > In both files the 10 is the weight for the MX record.=A0 If you have=20= > multiple servers you want to accept email, you would use this number=20= > to designate the order they should get mail, smaller numbers are=20 > primary to get email. > > When you make a change on the primary DNS server zone file be sure to=20= > change the serial number in that zone file.=A0 Also I usually stop and=20= > start named on the primary.=A0 I also remove the backup files on the=20= > secondary servers and stop and start named on those too to see that=20 > the new files are transferred and thus being used. > Yes, I did increment the serial number and put in the final dot. I am=20 still getting test messages rejected for name service lookup=20 failure--with no explanation. I contacted the isp about it. It seems as though the rejection was base=20= on a cached response. Thanks for the info; Jeff K
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?270b3a70a0dd0477353e5bf978ba6a34>