On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, you wrote:
> > > Yes, it's useful. I like nslookup. (Plus I feel that dig is pretty verbose,
> > > but maybe there's a flag to control that that I've been too lazy to look
> > > for.)
> >
> > I guess it depends on application. If you need to know the nuts and bolts
> > of a query, use dig. If you only need a quick resolution use host.
laziness dictates that nslookup allows you to set the server and then
execute multiple queries .. with dig you have ot type the server name in
each time .. small, but annoying extra thing
> > The problem (for me anyways) was that what you asked for from nslookup need
> > not be what it returned. You would ask it to query one nameserver and it would
> > for no apparent reason ignore your request and use nameservers in your
> > resolve file.
>
> nslookup does a rather dumb thing: it tries to lookup the reverse DNS
> for the nameserver it's about to use. Apart from being a waste of
> time, failure to find the name means it will refuse to query that
> nameserver.
agreed it is a dumb thing, especially if your nameserver doesnt have a
name to lookup ....
> nslookup is a throwback to 1970's UNIX bollocks, as is the whole of
> the BIND distribution. If you have to use anything from BIND, host
> and dig are at least somewhat consistent....
but its nice .. I like the old things .. I bough ta tape drive because it
would give me the excuse to use the mt command ;)
--
Robin Szemeti
The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!
