On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:39:36PM -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-11-25 at 22:44 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> >
> > note twice a query on NS of example.com
>
> Yes. That is part of my original report. I query it twice and it
> returns inconsistent results.
Strange and, I
Hi,
I looked around the source code and made some modifications to fit my needs.
With this patch,
server=/.google./127.0.0.1#5053 # match domains with .google. in it or
ending with .google
#server=/.google/127.0.0.1#5053 # ditto
server=/.google.co./127.0.0.1#5053# the same as server=/.
I am using version 2.80 and finding dnsmasq's specification of a
domain->server_address configuration to be inconsistent. My dnsmasq
configuration has:
/etc/NetworkManager/dnsmasq.d/00-local:server=/example.com/10.75.22.247
But observe the effects of this configuration:
# dig example.com. ns
On Mon, 2019-11-25 at 19:15 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
>
> hostname && cat /etc/resolv.conf
# hostname
host.example.com
# cat /etc/resolv.conf
# Generated by NetworkManager
search example.com
nameserver 127.0.0.1
Cheers,
b.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 01:44:48PM -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-11-25 at 19:15 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> > On 25-11-2019 18:41, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> >
> > > I am using version 2.80 and finding dnsmasq's specification of a
> > > domain->server_address configuration to be
On 25-11-2019 18:41, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> I am using version 2.80 and finding dnsmasq's specification of a
> domain->server_address configuration to be inconsistent. My dnsmasq
> configuration has:
>
> /etc/NetworkManager/dnsmasq.d/00-local:server=/example.com/10.75.22.247
>
> But observe
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 11:56:56PM +0800, Mingjian Hong wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 4:45 PM Geert Stappers wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 09:09:20AM +0800, Top Quoter wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 1:10 AM Geert Stappers wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 11:48:45PM +0800, New
On Mon, 2019-11-25 at 20:59 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
>
> Please confirm that each of the above `dig` commands
> was **all** done at `host.example.com`
Yes, of course.
> Please, pretty please, say if I missed that `dig example.com. ns` was
> done on two different machines.
No it was not.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 03:54:47PM -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-11-25 at 20:59 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
> >
> > Please confirm that each of the above `dig` commands
> > was **all** done at `host.example.com`
>
> Yes, of course.
Acknowlegde on confirmation of "all at same
On Mon, 2019-11-25 at 22:44 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote:
>
> note twice a query on NS of example.com
Yes. That is part of my original report. I query it twice and it
returns inconsistent results.
> # dig +short @127.0.0.1 example.com. ns
> > server.example.com.
> > # dig +short @127.0.0.1
10 matches
Mail list logo
