| |
| |
| |
|
Comments:
<0> hi
<0> i have this problem: /etc/bind/named.conf:63: when using 'view' statements, all zones must be in views
<1> let's say someone uses a domain strickly for email
<1> does that person need an A record?
<2> mail requires MX, which points to a host, which requires an A record.
<1> ?
<1> ah
<1> the host of the MX record is different than the host or ip of the A record
<1> so hmm
<3> hi : http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?p=2340333#post2340333 --can someone help me
<4> kreg_work: Well, actually, when there isn't an MX record mail is delivered to the A record... (That's what the MTAs do in practice at least, if that's considered fully sane is a different question.)
<4> Maybe I missed the whole point, when I reread what had been sent
<4> said
<4> gee
<4> gotta shut up and wait for myself to wake up
<2> kreg_work: Obviously to be fully 'sane' as hawk mentioned, the zone should really have an MX record firstly, which points to a host (IN MX <mailhost). Further, if the mailhost is within the same zone, there should be a corresponding somehost IN A <ip> record.
<4> Well, yeah... But after rereading the question, I realized that the point pretty much was that the MX can be for something in some different zone, so there doesn't really have to be an A record in the same zone, I guess...
<2> Well then further information is required, but siffice it to say.
<2> :)
<2> suffice too
<2> Well, on the original question anyway, i hadent read the reply
<2> In which case, no.
<2> foo.com > IN MX <mailhost.{foo.com|someotherdomain.com} > if MX = in this zone { mailhost IN A <ip> } else { no A record required }
<2> howzat?!
<2> :D
<2> gah.
<4> Something like that, yes...
<2> To clarify, yes, the MX record needs a corresponding A record. If its in another zone, then you dont need an A record within your zone, no. This has probably already been setup (say in the case of a mail hosting provider)
<2> better.
<2> *runs off to play bf2*
<5> Does anyone here use those MX authentication records in order to confirm you're a "real" server rather than a spam distributor?
<2> spf ?
<5> That's the one.
<5> Worth the trouble? Not?
<2> If everyone used them, sure.
<2> If every single mail server admin used them, and dropped mail according to them, sure.
<2> At this presetn moment in time, and probably the case in the long term future, useless.
<5> I figured that was the case.
<2> Mind you, I have an spf record for my domain.
<2> Not my call whether people want to take it into account or not
<2> Cant hurt, basically.
<3> grrrrrr ****in VIEW statment
<3> is there bind master :)...view stetmanet master
<3> :)
<6> im having some problem with RDNS, giving me a SERVFAIL..... can anyone help?
<4> Zachhhh: "Q: It doesn't work! A: Look buddy, doesn't work is an ambiguous statement. Does it sit on the couch all day? Does it want more money? Does it waste its time on IRC all day long? Please be specific! Define 'it' and what it isn't doing."
<6> hawk first of all i didnt say it doesnt work i said that i am getting a SERVFAIL and it is only on my RDNS my DNS works fine
<4> Same thing basically. That's not even close to being enough info for anyone to even guess what might be going on.
<6> well what kind of details would you like
Return to
#dns
or
Go to some related
logs:
dcc send unable to open file
#fluxbox
#php
pftp-mew howto
#asm
automatix bleding
#fluxbox
how to start kwm redhat enterprise
verlihub +mysql permission
rafd.net
|
|