Claudio Jeker writes:
> Until recently only AXFR was using tcp,
If you look at the original DNS specs, i.e. RFC 1035, RFC 1123, etc,
you will find that the protocol always specified that any DNS queries
can be performed over TCP. In particular, this is the normal fallback
method when a query over
Hi Martin,
> I may be wrong, but doesn't DNS use TCP if the answer to a query
> exceeds a certain length?
Yes. If the resolver receives a truncated response (TC bit set) it is supposed
to
re-do the query via TCP.
You are out of luck if your resolver thinks:
'What the hell is a TC bit?! I'll j
Salut, Venty,
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:31:19 +0100, Martin Ebnoether wrote:
> I may be wrong, but doesn't DNS use TCP if the answer to a query
> exceeds a certain length?
The use of DNS over TCP allows the answers to exceed a certain length,
but the use of NFS over TCP depends soleily on the type
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 06:42:57PM +0100, Martin Ebnoether wrote:
> On the Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 02:42:36PM +0100, Tonnerre Lombard blubbered:
>
...
> > It is also a DNS issue, depending on the number of results returned;
> > the size of a DNS/UDP response is limited to 1 UDP packet, which again
On the Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 02:42:36PM +0100, Tonnerre Lombard blubbered:
Hoi.
> 1. it is highly unlikely that these stupid wannabe SPAM filters get the
>response containing so many PTR records right. It is most likely
>that either the software blows up or that it only ever considers the
On the Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 01:57:46PM +0100, Adrian Ulrich blubbered:
Hoi.
> The resolver implementation of our MTA software appears to have a problem
> with truncated UDP responses.
> (Btw: Why do you have such a lenghty PTR record for 195.141.232.78 ?)
I may be wrong, but doesn't DNS use TCP
Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
> ...
>> This is a silly reverse setup. A reverse lookup should only return
>> one hostname, not 20.
> ...
>
> Well, tend to agree.
>
> What about the most stupid wanabe Spam-fighter which are very unhappy
> as in place (e.g. the third-party service provider systems ac
Salut, Tobias,
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:52:04 +0100, Tobias Göller wrote:
> There are a lot of E-Mail Providers (i.e. gmx) behaving like this
> already.
>
> If A, PTR, MX and HELO are not exactly the same (all four) the
> message is marked as SPAM. There are pro's and cons for this...
This is an
Hi Kurt,
On 26.03.2008, at 15:03, Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
...
This is a silly reverse setup. A reverse lookup should only return
one
hostname, not 20.
...
What about the most stupid wanabe Spam-fighter which are very
unhappy as in place (e.g. the third-party service provider systems
a
Salut, Kurt,
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:03:40 +0100, Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
> What about the most stupid wanabe Spam-fighter which are very unhappy
> as in place (e.g. the third-party service provider systems acting
> with some SC subsidiaries...) which high rate valid messages if
> certain brain-d
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Per Jessen
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:26 PM
To: swinog@lists.swinog.ch
Subject: Re: [swinog] Has Bluewin a DNS Problem
___
swinog mailing list
swinog@list
> When I must have for everery Domain an IP for the reverse of Bluewin is a
> big Problem...
You don't have to: The lengthy PTR record just triggered a bug in our MTA
Software.
Anyway: Such a multi-ptr record is of no use:
- It does not scale
- There is no need for it. A single record (matc
you can just take another name for the mailserver of these domains -
only one for all
so you have one PTR Record, pointing to mailserver.domain
then you can use the same domainname for mailserver on the others 29
Domains. this fixes this problem
Silvan
Am 26.03.2008 um 13:45 schrieb Xa
OTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [swinog] Has Bluewin a DNS Problem
Hi Xaver,
I had a similar problem when I set up the mail server on
my virtual server and wanted to send mail to domains that
are hosted by zoneedit.com.
After sear
>> Step 1:
>> ==
>> Bluewin does a reverse DNS lookup on your IP (195.141.232.78), which
>> returns the following:
>>
>> # nslookup
>>> 195.141.232.78
>> ;; Truncated, retrying in TCP mode.
>> Server: www.multipop.ch.
>> Address:195.141.232.253#53
>>
>> 78.232.141.195.in-addr
>> Step 1:
>> ==
>> Bluewin does a reverse DNS lookup on your IP (195.141.232.78), which
>> returns the following:
>>
>> # nslookup
>>> 195.141.232.78
>> ;; Truncated, retrying in TCP mode.
>> Server: www.multipop.ch.
>> Address:195.141.232.253#53
>>
>> 78.232.141.195.in-addr
Franco Hug wrote:
> Step 1:
> ==
> Bluewin does a reverse DNS lookup on your IP (195.141.232.78),
> which returns the following:
>
> # nslookup
>> 195.141.232.78
> ;; Truncated, retrying in TCP mode.
> Server: www.multipop.ch.
> Address:195.141.232.253#53
>
> 78.232.141.195.i
Hi,
> Bluewin does a reverse DNS lookup on your IP (195.141.232.78),
..yes
> Bluewin does a "normal" forward DNS lookup, using the result from the
> above query.
we don't.
The resolver implementation of our MTA software appears to have a problem
with truncated UDP responses.
(Btw: Why do you h
Hi Xaver,
I had a similar problem when I set up the mail server on
my virtual server and wanted to send mail to domains that
are hosted by zoneedit.com.
After searching a while, I think this is the way how it works:
Step 1:
==
Bluewin does a reverse DNS lookup on your IP (195.141.232.78),
w
Yes,
This is the IP of our Mailserver
Greetings Xaver
- Original Message -
From: "Adrian Ulrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: [swinog] Has Bluewin a DNS Problem
Good Morning,
Is your so
Good Morning,
Is your source ip 195.141.232.78 ?
Regards,
Adrian
___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
21 matches
Mail list logo
