Howard Wilkinson wrote:
Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
Howard Wilkinson wrote:
Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>
> I have several DNS servers and wondered if the following
> record entry is properly set for all of my DNS servers:
>
> $TTL 172800
> @ IN SOA ns1.abc.com. admin.abc.com. (
> 1 ; serial
> 3H ; refresh
> 15M ; retry
> 1W ; expiry
> 1D ) ; minimum
> ;============ Nameserver ================
> @ IN NS ns1.abc.com.
> @ IN NS ns2.abc.com.
> @ IN NS ns3.abc.com.
> ;============ Mail Exchange =============
> @ IN MX 10 mail1.abc.com.
> @ IN MX 20 mail2.abc.com.
> @ IN MX 30 mail3.abc.com.
> @ IN TXT v=spf1 a mx -all
> ;============ Hosts ======================
> @ IN A 10.1.0.1
> mail1 IN A 10.1.0.1
> mail2 IN A 10.1.0.2
> mail3 IN A 10.1.0.3
> ns1 IN A 10.1.0.1
> ns2 IN A 10.1.0.2
> ns3 IN A 10.1.0.2
> ;========================================
>
> In particular, I am focusing on record:
> @ IN A 10.1.0.1
>
> The reason I have set all of my DNS zones for the above record
> for all of my DNS servers is because if had I set this record for the
> actual localhost IP address, it appears that if I send mail on the
> localhost, the localhost would receive the email I sent. For example,
> sending mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be received at the localhost
instead
> of being sent to mail{1,2,3}.abc.com. Worse, any localhost programs
> attempting to send emails to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" would fail to be
delivered
> to one of the MX list.
>
> So, the question is, must each DNS server have it's own real IP
address
> in the '@' record? If so, how do I get around this?
>
> Kind regards,
> Dan
>
Dan,
do you have any other services with the network address 10.1.0.1 which
you want to refer to as 'abc.com'? If not you do not need the 'A'
record
just after the Hosts line. Otherwise for a simple internal network this
look reasonable. However, do you not have any other hosts you need to
address? If so the you need their 'A' records.
Howard.
Yes, I have services at 10.1.0.1 as well as at several other
hosts. The main reason that I use the @ is so that I can
use 'abc.com' such as [EMAIL PROTECTED] or to simply type
abc.com in the web-browser's URL line and it would get
resolved.
What I found was, if I was at host one.abc.com, which had
a DNS server and had @ record set to it's own IP address,
and a local account "dan", sending mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
would be received locally instead of being delivered
according to the MX records. That is why I set the @
record for all of my DNS servers to the same IP address
and not to each DNS servers actual IP address.
Does this make sense?
Thanks!
Dan
The point I was making was that the address associated with the '@'
record is independent of the name server information. The name server
address data is correctly listed later in the file. Thus you could if
you did not have any other services list the name servers without that
record.
Your email SHOULD be delivered using the MX records data. Which again
is independent from the '@' address record. I say SHOULD because you
may have a mail routing issues depending on the mailer you use and how
it it configured. Sendmail can be set up so that it will deliver
locally even in the presence of relevant MX records. This has been the
default in some distributions. I do not know about the current Fedora
set up as we use custom configurations for all of our systems.
So I suspect you need to look at the mailer set up not the address
record entries in the DNS arena.
Howard.
P.S. I have copied this back to the mailing list, but I suspect we
have broken the thread.
Ok, thanks for this information! I was not sure what was going
on and why. I will look into sendmail to see what is going on.
Thanks for your help!
Dan
P.S. I noticed that you have email receipt requests turned on and
if that was intended, never mind.
--
fedora-list mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
