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
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

Reply via email to