On Fri, Oct 18, 2019, at 7:41 AM, Simon Kelley wrote: > I can see a strong argument that a query for a name which is configured > as a CNAME in dnsmaq, but for a type which is not known to dnsmasq, > should return a NODATA reply. > > In fact I can't see a downside to that. > > Anybody else? > > > Simon.
First, thank you for the patch. A question: Would this patch mean the restriction from the manpage I mentioned will no longer apply? Or would it still apply, but be satisfied as long as a record of any type is known for the target? (Note that the latter is the way I originally interpreted the manual, until I observed otherwise.) I ask because in the former case, that could mean Dnsmasq would send a NODATA reply if the target only exists in public DNS, correct? I'm not familiar enough with the intricacies of DNS to know if that would cause a problem for clients. Relevant snippet of the manpage copied here for reference: "There are significant limitations on the target; it must be a DNS name which is known to dnsmasq from /etc/hosts (or additional hosts files), from DHCP, from --interface-name or from another --cname. If the target does not satisfy this criteria, the whole cname is ignored." Thanks, Nick _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasqfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss