On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 03:54:47PM -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Mon, 2019-11-25 at 20:59 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: > > > > Please confirm that each of the above `dig` commands > > was **all** done at `host.example.com` > > Yes, of course.
Acknowlegde on confirmation of "all at same host" > } } } cat /etc/resolv.conf > } } server 127.0.0.1 > > Acknowledge. Please repeat the original test[1] with > > > > dig +short @127.0.0.1 example.com. ns > > dig +short @127.0.0.1 mail.example.com. > > dig +short @127.0.0.1 example.com. ns note twice a query on NS of example.com > # dig +short @127.0.0.1 example.com. ns > server.example.com. > # dig +short @127.0.0.1 mail.example.com. > 9.1.1.18 > # dig +short @127.0.0.1 interlinx.bc.ca. ns Hey, that one was not in the original post. > server.example.ca. > ns1.he.net. > ns2.he.net. > ns3.he.net. > ns4.he.net. > ns5.he.net. Acknowledge. Back to what the original problem is. (explain what inconsistent use of a server=/example.com/<ip_addr> specification is supposed to mean) Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss