On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Greg White wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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. :)
Forgive me if this is a stupid question: does dnscache run alongside BIND,
or replace it? Building BIND in a chroot jail and getting it all to work
was probably the most time-consuming part of getting my server running,
and I'm *really* loath to mess with it now that it seems OK.
Does dnscache store cached DNS information in a way that is easier for
qmail to understand than raw BIND/DNS data?
My overwhelming preference would be to patch qmail so that it understands
what msn.com is sending to it. I'm still not sure I understand the
problem well enough to know what to do, but I'm wondering why this isn't a
problem with everybody who runs qmail if qmail is choking on msn.com's
response. Do people get different versions of msn's DNS information
depending on their nameserver configurations?
Is it possible that this problem is more than just the buffer-size issue,
or that the patch that increases the buffer size isn't a complete
solution?
Thanks again for any thoughts or comments,
Steve
--
Steve Linberg, Chief Goblin
Silicon Goblin Technologies
http://silicongoblin.com
Be kind. Remember, everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
