MX for mailhub and reverse pointer file

MX for mailhub and reverse pointer file

Post by Harry Putn » Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:47:51


etup: Gentoo linux (kernel 2.6.15-r3)
bind-9.3.2
sendmail-8.13.4
Using bind/named as simple authoritative home lan server

I want to get a correct MX set for my local lan mailserver but using
the Bind and DNS 4th ed I don't find examples that are really
complete. All the index hits on MX still leave me wondering what if
anything needs to go into the reverse pointer file for the zone.

Currently I have this pair of zone files and below the log from
starting named with those in place.

zone.local.net0
------- 8< snip --------
$TTL 1D
@ IN SOA reader.local.net0. hostmaster (
200405191 ; serial
8H ; refresh
4H ; retry
4W ; expire
1D ) ; minimum
;[HP 02/09/06 19:25 ] define the authoritative name server
IN NS reader
; [HP 02/09/06 19:25 ] defind domain mail server with MX record &
; matching A record
; [HP 01/30/06 09:56 The 10 indicates priority [lower is higher]]
IN MX 10 reader
reader IN A 192.168.0.4

; define domain functions with CNAMEs
smtp IN CNAME reader
www IN CNAME reader
tic IN CNAME reader

;;; From Bill Larson
;;; 1. "@" as the origin for a zone
;;; 2. Non-fully qualified names will be fully qualified with
;;; the $ORIGIN
;;; 3. When the left hand name isn't specified, it carries
;;; over from the previous record

localhost IN A 127.0.0.1
;; local machines in alphabetical order
ansil IN A 192.168.0.21
bjp IN A 192.168.0.16
fw IN A 192.168.0.20
harvey IN A 192.168.0.22
mob2 IN A 192.168.0.3
wap IN A 192.168.0.50
------- 8< snip --------

revp.192.168.0 Do I need something in here regarding the MX besides a
pointer to its A record?

Aside: Does the TTL need to be in the reverse file? Named complains
about the SOA record not being at the top.

------- 8< snip --------
$TTL 1D
@ IN SOA reader.local.net0. reader.reader.local.net0. (
200405190 ; serial
28800 ; refresh (8 hours)
14400 ; retry (4 hours)
2419200 ; expire (4 weeks)
86400 ; minimum (1 day)
)
; define the authoritative name server
IN NS reader.local.net0.
;;;Do I need something here like:
;;; IN MX reader.local.net0
; our hosts, in numeric order
3 IN PTR mob2.local.net0.
4 IN PTR reader.local.net0.
16 IN PTR bjp.local.net0.
20 IN PTR fw.local.net0.
21 IN PTR ansil.local.net0.
22 IN PTR harvey.local.net0.
50 IN PTR wap.local.net0.
------- 8< snip --------

Now about these logs (wrapped for mail), they seem pretty normal except
the one about named using an obsolete setsocket.

Any one know if that is something I need to worry about.

Feb 9 19:27:53 reader named[24087]: starting BIND 9.3.2 -u named -n 1
-d5

Feb 9 19:27:53 reader named[24087]: loading configuration from
'/etc/bind/named.conf'

Feb 9 19:27:53 reader named[24087]: listening on IPv4 interface lo,
127.0.0.1#53

Feb 9 19:27:53 reader kernel: process `named' is using obsolete
setsockopt SO_BSDCOMPAT

Feb 9 19:27:53 reader named[24087]: command channel listen
 
 
 

MX for mailhub and reverse pointer file

Post by Kevin Darc » Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:11:11


No.

That complaint pertains to the 0.0.127.in-addr.arpa zone, not this one.

Do you expect folks to be sending mail to XXXX@XXXXX.COM ?

- Kevin

 
 
 

MX for mailhub and reverse pointer file

Post by Harry Putn » Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:40:45

Kevin Darcy < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:




Sorry, I'm too dense to get the cryptic answer... does it mean no,
nothing goes in there or does it mean something goes in there but not
in that format?

And the log ...

Feb 9 19:27:53 reader kernel: process `named' is using obsolete
setsockopt SO_BSDCOMPAT

Do I need to worry about that?
 
 
 

MX for mailhub and reverse pointer file

Post by Kevin Darc » Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:51:08


Nothing goes in there, presumably. You only need MXes for the domain
names to be actually used as mail destinations. This zone is in the
in-addr.arpa tree. Although possible, it seems unlikely that anyone
would want a mail destination in that part of the namespace.

Add to that the fact that 192.168/16 is a *non-unique*, private address
space, so no-one outside of your organization should even been seeing
your version of it, it seems doubly unlikely that you'd want a mail
destination of @0.168.192.in-addr.arpa. Although I suppose anything is
possible with an internal-only root-zone and mail setup...

I skipped over that part because I've never gotten that error on any of
my systems. I think it's just informational.

- Kevin
 
 
 

MX for mailhub and reverse pointer file

Post by Mark Andre » Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:01:42


Go complain to the stupid Linux kernel developers.

If they don't want SO_BSDCOMPAT to be used is should
be removed from the header files.

Portable Linux code *has* to use SO_BSDCOMPAT if it is
present to get correct operation on Linux kernels where
it is effective.

Any portable code will be protecting the usage with

#ifdef SO_BSDCOMPAT
protected code
#endif

Mark
 
 
 

MX for mailhub and reverse pointer file

Post by Mark Andre » Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:01:42


Go complain to the stupid Linux kernel developers.

If they don't want SO_BSDCOMPAT to be used is should
be removed from the header files.

Portable Linux code *has* to use SO_BSDCOMPAT if it is
present to get correct operation on Linux kernels where
it is effective.

Any portable code will be protecting the usage with

#ifdef SO_BSDCOMPAT
protected code
#endif

Mark