nanog mailing list archives
Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: 1 Feb 2001 20:04:11 -0800
On Thu, 01 February 2001, Paul Vixie wrote:
pi () vuurwerk nl (Pim van Riezen) writes:bogosity while updating 8.2.2-P7 to 8.2.3: (1) 8.2.3 Doesn't accept the "(" in the SOA string to be on the next line after the IN SOA. Our script-generated zonefiles, about 45000 of them, all had this.Neither do the relevant RFC's, or any other DNS implementation. Pre-8.2.3 was simply _wrong_ to accept that syntax.
Is there any particular harm from accepting this syntax. It wouldn't be the first time a RFC has been updated to match working code.
Current thread:
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Sean Donelan (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Eric A. Hall (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Joshua Goodall (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Pim van Riezen (Feb 24)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Roeland Meyer (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] RE: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Pim van Riezen (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Sean Donelan (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Eric A. Hall (Feb 24)