> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:56:56 -0500 > From: Peter Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Leonard Mills wrote: > > check-names master ignore > > > > might well be what you're looking for. You lose name checking against the current standards :-). > > *That's* the question: what are the standards as BIND sees them? The RFCs > referenced in here and in the docs specify what's "official" (or what was > official years ago) but that's not necessarily the same as what BIND does: > > "The rules for legal hostnames / mail domains are derived from RFC 952 and > RFC 821 as modified by RFC 1123." (from BIND docs) > > > OK, so just what is derived? Did they take the rules verbatim? Or do they > allow some and not others? SRV records *require* the underbar, but they > aren't mentioned in any of the RFCs above or any posted here today ...
Well, you're allowed to have an "_" in a DOMAIN name but not in a HOST name. And RFC 2782 covers SRV RRs as used in DNS... (RFC 2782 is available http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2782.html and http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2782.txt ) > So the question stands - what do I lose if I choose "check-names slave > ignore"? > > > -- > Peter Laws / N5UWY > National Weather Center / Network Operations Center > University of Oklahoma Information Technology > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Feedback? Contact my director, Craig Cochell, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you! > ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 2655 Seely Ave M/S 9A1 San Jose, CA 95134 I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today. "A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision." "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton
