On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 10:38:26PM -0700, Greg White wrote:
[snip]
> I would have thought that the ability to send mail at all to
> large-mx.ckdhr.com would be a dead giveaway -- that requires TCP for
> sure -- it's a 747 byte response, even from dnscache. I'm sure with
> 'additional' records, it's fscking huge.
>
> I show msn.com's MX response well within the accepted limits, tho:
>
> gregw@frodo:~$ dnsq mx msn.com dns1.sj.msft.net
> 15 msn.com:
> 501 bytes, 1+12+0+8 records, response, authoritative, noerror
> query: 15 msn.com
True.
> Since I was curious, though, I thought I'd ask a BIND server myself. I
> did get a _massive_ 801 byte response from a relatively well-known
> (locally) public BIND cache... Perhaps your best bet _would_ be using
> dnscache.
I got the same result on a BIND, which is why I suggested dnscache.
BIND, even as a cache, has an annoying tendency to give lots of
extra data, which resolver libraries won't ever use anyway.
> Do not fear setting up dnscache at all -- I have never installed or
> configured a simpler setup if all you want is a local cache:
>
> 1. download it.
> 2. untar it.
> 3. read http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/install.html. All you've really gotta do
> is create to UIDs and run dnscache-conf, and add one symlink, if you're
> already running svscan. :)
Indeed. It's quite trivial.
Greetz, Peter
--
Monopoly http://www.dataloss.nl/monopoly.html
