Re: [Pdns-users] Possible tcp listener issue

2010-03-29 Thread Michael Presson
Hi,

Simon is off at the moment, the details of our installation are:

Debian Etch (2.6.24-etchnhalf.1-686-bigmem) and Lenny
(2.6.26-2-686-bigmem).  We have used the supplied binary version of 3.2
and are seing the TCP listener fail every few days (but not at regular
intervals).

If you need any further information please let me know.

Michael


 
 Now I don't know anything about this issue specifically, but it's customary
 to provide some extra information when reporting bugs, what OS and
 OS version are you using for example ?
 
 Did you download a Linux-distribution binary ? What kernel version are
 you using ?
 
 Or did you build from an updated BSD-ports. Did you do your own build ?
 If so, what compiler did you use ? And so on.
 
 Some information would be better then no information. :-)
 
 Just so you know.
 
 Have a nice day,
  Leen.
 
 ___
 Pdns-users mailing list
 Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com
 http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users
 .
 


-- 
| Michael Presson  Broadband Solutions for |
| Network and Systems LeadHome  Business@ |
| Plusnet PLC www.plus.net |
| Registered in England no:3279013 |
| Registered Office:Internet House, 2 Tenter Street, Sheffield, S1 4BY |
+--- Plusnet - ISPA Best Consumer ISP 2008 +
___
Pdns-users mailing list
Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com
http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users


Re: [Pdns-users] Possible tcp listener issue

2010-03-29 Thread Laurent Papier
Le Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:34:11 +0100
bert hubert bert.hub...@netherlabs.nl écrit:

 Ok, that makes two reports of the same thing.
 
 When this happens, do you experience timeouts on TCP queries? Or connection
 refused? Or just servfail answers?
 
 Can you check if this happens again before restarting?
 

Hi,
I have more info about this problem. Since Friday, I have switched to
threads=1. The problem did not happen again.

So the problem may be related to tcp+thread!=1.

-- 
Laurent Papier - 03 88 75 80 50
Admin. système - SdV Plurimedia - http://www.sdv.fr/
___
Pdns-users mailing list
Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com
http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users


Re: [Pdns-users] PowerDNS returns a malformed response when queried for a TXT record larger than 257 characters.

2010-03-29 Thread Augie Schwer
Hey Jullan,

Thank you for the reply -- my problem isn't how to compose a
multi-part SPF message inside a TXT record.

The problem I see is how PowerDNS (mis-)behaves when trying to serve a
non-compliant record.

PowerDNS returns NOERROR for the status and then returns a malformed message.

I understand the argument of bad data in, bad data out; I would
rather see PowerDNS not return bad data though.

--Augie

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Julian Mehnle jul...@mehnle.net wrote:
 Augie Schwer wrote:

 PowerDNS returns a malformed response when queried for a TXT record
 larger than 257 characters.

 [...]

 PowerDNS returns NOERROR and returns as much data as it can which ends
 up creating the corrupt packet.

 Admittedly one shouldn't put bad data in (the above record is not RFC
 compliant); I was hoping PowerDNS would handle the response better --
 any of the response codes could fit and certainly not return a
 malformed packet; I'd rather see an empty packet or maybe a truncated
 RDATA and a NOERROR return code.

 The problem is that while a TXT record can contain multiple strings (the
 parts you have to enclose in double quotes in TXT records in both BIND
 and PowerDNS), each string can only be 256 bytes long at maximum by design
 -- one length octet plus 255 bytes of text (RFC 1035).  If you want to
 have a longer TXT record, you have to split it into several strings, like
 so:

  v=spf1 ip4:209.204.164.194 a mx mx:gordonmedical.com,
   mx:mailin-02.mx.sonic.net,mx:g.mx.sonic.net, mx:mailin-01.mx.sonic.net,
   mx:e.mx.sonic.net mx:a.mx.sonic.net, mx:c.mx.sonic.net,
   mx:d.mx.sonic.net, mx:h.mx.sonic.net, mx:f.mx.sonic.net, mx:and 
  mx:b.mx.

 leaving a space between strings like so: string1 string2.  The SPF
 spec states that multiple strings will be concatenated seamlessly, so
 you'd probably have to include another space *in* the strings, either at
 the end of string1  or at the start of  string2.

 Note that this is different from splitting the record into several
 *records* (opposed to several strings in a single record).  This doesn't
 work with SPF since ordering among records is undefined by DNS and SPF
 wouldn't know how to concatenate them correctly.

 Of course you could just remove the erroneous commas and fix up the SPF
 record to get below the 256 characters limit in this particular case.

 -Julian

 ___
 Pdns-users mailing list
 Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com
 http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users





-- 
Augie Schwer-au...@schwer.us-http://schwer.us
Key fingerprint = 9815 AE19 AFD1 1FE7 5DEE 2AC3 CB99 2784 27B0 C072
___
Pdns-users mailing list
Pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com
http://mailman.powerdns.com/mailman/listinfo/pdns-users