Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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.
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009290850070.335-100000@veager.siteplus.net>
In-Reply-To: <038e01c02a11$e3121e80$0c00a8c0@ipform.ru>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0009290850070.335-100000>