I have no complaints about a new thread.
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Dominick C. Pastore wrote:
> > 2. In fact, Dnsmasq never follows a CNAME for MX or TXT requests, even
> > when the CNAME does point to a host Dnsmasq knows
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Dominick C. Pastore wrote:
> 2. In fact, Dnsmasq never follows a CNAME for MX or TXT requests, even
> when the CNAME does point to a host Dnsmasq knows locally. (I assume
> this is the reason for #1.)
RFC2181 explicitly forbids MX records from being
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 07:19:13PM +0200, Dominik DL6ER wrote:
> Dear mailing list,
>
> The proposed patch ensures that the DHCPv6 IAID is of unsigned type.
> This is entirely uncritical, however, as the variable is already now
> interpreted and handled as being of unsigned type in
> *
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Dominick C. Pastore wrote:
> ... but I suspect this isn't intended behavior either,
> so it seemed worth mentioning.
Is it OK that I start a new thread (with matching Subject) for it?
[yes/no]
___
Dear mailing list,
The proposed patch ensures that the DHCPv6 IAID is of unsigned type.
This is entirely uncritical, however, as the variable is already now
interpreted and handled as being of unsigned type in
* lease.c:read_leases(),
* helper.c:create_helper(),
* dbus.c:dbus_add_lease(), and
*
I apologize for continuing the discussion on this. The patch (applied on top of
2.80-1 provided by Debian Buster) completely solved the issues I was having,
but I did notice a couple other things.
First, locally configured CNAMEs and records other than A or do not seem
to play well
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 12:25:31PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 12:17:50PM +0200, john doe wrote:
> > On 10/20/2019 10:15 AM, Chris Green wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 08:59:03AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 10:21:26PM +0100, Chris Green
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 12:17:50PM +0200, john doe wrote:
> On 10/20/2019 10:15 AM, Chris Green wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 08:59:03AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 10:21:26PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
> > I don't add any command line options to dnsmasq, my
On 10/20/2019 10:15 AM, Chris Green wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 08:59:03AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 10:21:26PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
>>>
>>> So why does my laptop have *two* "search zbmc.eu" lines in
>>> /etc/resolv.conf whereas other machines only have one?
In digging into the source, it looks like loop detect was purposefully
coded to only detect loops on upstream servers and not any servers that
are for a specific domain. I'm curious why that is, and would it be
acceptable to remove the SERV_HAS_DOMAIN in the relevant sections of
*src/loop.c*?
---
man/dnsmasq.8 | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/man/dnsmasq.8 b/man/dnsmasq.8
index 9d5d4d0..85c04a1 100644
--- a/man/dnsmasq.8
+++ b/man/dnsmasq.8
@@ -677,7 +677,7 @@ given for \fB--add-subnet\fP applies to \fB--add-mac\fP
too. An alternative enco
MAC, as
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 08:59:03AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 10:21:26PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
> >
> > So why does my laptop have *two* "search zbmc.eu" lines in
> > /etc/resolv.conf whereas other machines only have one?
>
> Yes, your laptop and your other
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 10:21:26PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 10:21:21PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 09:02:19PM +0100, Chris Green wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I've suddenly lost the ability to resolve local machine names without
> > > > > a
13 matches
Mail list logo
