On 5/13/04 at 11:36 PM -0500, wayne wrote:
From the BIND9 documentation:
Note: The rrset-order statement is not yet implemented in BIND
9. BIND 9 currently supports only a "random-cyclic" ordering,
where the server randomly chooses a starting point within the
RRset and returns the records in order starting at that point,
wrapping around the end of the RRset if necessary.
(*Mumble*)
Well, as was said earlier, the place where this makes a difference in
my straw man is that if the receiving side uses the short circuit
method, and the sending side has conflicting records in the DNS (a
state of affairs that shouldn't happen anyway), the receiving side
might get two different answers depending on what they get back
first. I'm not overly concerned about that case, but your mileage may
vary.
So, example.com has:
example.com. MX smtp.example.com.
smtp.example.com. A 1.2.3.4
example.com. MX secondary.example.net.
and under the control of example.net:
secondary.example.net. A 5.6.7.8
Now, even if you add the complement-set operator, you can't easily
express the set of illegitimate IP address since !smtp.example.com
includes the IP address of secondary.example.net and vice versa.
More over, example.com may have no idea when example.net changes
the IP address for secondary.example.net.
This I don't understand. Why can't example.com list
secondary.example.net in its MARID record? It was perfectly capable
of listing it in its MX.
There is no problem using secondary.example.net to describe the
Legitimate set (L). However, it is useless when trying to describe
the Illegitimate set (I).
Are you saying that it's going to be hard to come up with a syntax
for "everything except smtp.example.com and secondary.example.net"?
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102