On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 02:26:01PM -0000, John Horne wrote:
> Not sure its related but when I used nslookup to check this I got a
> non-authoritative answer:
Oh, yes:
bash$ host -v -t MX ixl.com ns.toc.ixl.com
Server: ns.toc.ixl.com
Address: 216.99.0.132
Query about ixl.com for record types MX
Trying ixl.com ...
Query done, 2 answers, authoritative status: no error
ixl.com 1800 IN MX 100 mailconn2.ixl.com
!!! ixl.com MX host mailconn2.ixl.com is not canonical
ixl.com 1800 IN MX 10 mailconn1.ixl.com
!!! ixl.com MX host mailconn1.ixl.com is not canonical
Authority information:
ixl.com 1800 IN NS ns.toc.ixl.com
ixl.com 1800 IN NS ns2.toc.ixl.com
ixl.com 1800 IN NS ns3.toc.ixl.com
Additional information:
ns.toc.ixl.com 86400 IN A 216.99.0.132
ns2.toc.ixl.com 86400 IN A 216.99.0.133
ns3.toc.ixl.com 86400 IN A 207.15.160.188
bash$ host -v -t A mailconn1.ixl.com ns.toc.ixl.com
Server: ns.toc.ixl.com
Address: 216.99.0.132
Query about mailconn1.ixl.com for record types A
Trying mailconn1.ixl.com ...
Query done, 2 answers, status: no error
The following answer is not authoritative:
mailconn1.ixl.com 1800 IN CNAME srvntsxconn1.toc.ixl.com
srvntsxconn1.toc.ixl.com 86400 IN A 216.99.0.136
Trying srvntsxconn1.toc.ixl.com ...
Query done, 1 answer, status: no error
The following answer is not authoritative:
srvntsxconn1.toc.ixl.com 86400 IN A 216.99.0.136
Yeah, their servers seem confused about what they're authoritative
about. toc.ixl.com has the same NS information as ixl.com, so it's not
a question of needing to use different servers...
I wouldn't have thought this was sufficient to stop mail delivery
though.
SRH
--
Steve Haslam, Production Engineer, Excite UK steve.haslam@???
i sit and stare at the gun pointed at my head
and think about all the possibilities
