epike on Tue, 15 Jul 2003 11:39:05 -0400 |
O > On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 11:37:14AM -0400, epike wrote: > > that would be true if the hosts have a 1-1 mapping between > > the names and the IP's (and if the reverse mapping works > > correctly). all yur going to get here is the canonical > > names...consider my hosts: > > No, what he's getting is precisely *not* canonical names (CNAMEs). > He's getting pointer (PTR, reverse name) records and address (A) > records. That's precisely missing any extra A records and CNAMEs. > I meant canonical name, not CNAME. I meant that as meaning the canonical, in the sense of "normalized" as in whatever the reverse points to. But I guess I got my terminologies mixed up---but yur right its whatever PTR record/s says it is. epike _________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|