https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1395
--- Comment #11 from Wolfgang Breyha <[email protected]> --- It seems even my first proposed patch didn't work for DNS_NOMATCH (or other results cached within dns.c/dns_basic_lookup()/tree_dns_fails) answers. So neither my "ignore" option nor your TTL patch prevents negative cache entries from being valid as long as a process is running. The comment above the tree_search(tree_dns_fail,..) talks about "This is mainly so that a timeout on one domain doesn't happen time and time again"... I'm not sure if a timeout ever results in a straight DNS_NOMATCH and if it makes sense to cache it in tree_dns_fails and which impact it would have to not cache it in general. Not speaking of the DNS_AGAIN->DNS_NOMATCH translations. Only direct DNS_NOMATCH results. I'm currently thinking of possible solutions how to make negative cache TTL aware, or if I improve my local hack by extending dns_basic_lookup with an option to select if DNS_NOMATCH should be cached. Maybe you have even better ideas? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
