I think the problem is the the "IN" in the second record does not belong there. The 2nd field is a type, and both "IN" and "MX" are types, so you shouldn't have both. The second line is an MX record, not an IN record, so lose the IN and I think you'll be fine.
Kevin -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Evans Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:17 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [rhelv5-list] named/BIND data file syntax;moving from Solaris 9 to RHEL5 We have been running Sun's Solaris 9 BIND (reported as version 8.3.3) for some years and are retiring the old hardware. However, we came across an apparent syntax issue in moving the RHEL's BIND. Here's a piece of the old data file: oldmail IN A 192.168.9.2 IN MX 100 mail Note the empty first field of the second line. Solaris BIND has never complained about this. "mail" is published as a CNAME in the outside world, since it is our main mail server. However, RHEL's BIND barfs on this missing data field. And, the MX record gets lost and not sent upstream if we turn the Solaris BIND off. What's wrong here? thanks. -- Tim Evans, TKEvans.com, Inc. | 5 Chestnut Court UNIX System Admin Consulting | Owings Mills, MD 21117 http://www.tkevans.com/ | 443-394-3864 http://www.come-here.com/News/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
