running master, slave on the same computer

[Barry Margolin]

In article <ce9avj$ks3$1 at sf1.isc.org>, phn at icke-reklam.ipsec.nu wrote:

> Steve Friedl <steve at unixwiz.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 10:23:24PM +0000, phn at icke-reklam.ipsec.nu wrote:
> >> Max Nokhrin <mno11 at lycos.com> wrote:
> >> > Thanks,
> >> 
> >> > For now, I think it will be OK if I have only 1 DNS server. The system 
> >> > is only running one domain, so if it fails, not too much of a deal. But 
> >> > thank you for the recommendations.
> >> 
> >> You are wrong. There is a huge difference in "some nameservers cannot
> >> be reached" and "no nameservers can be reached".
> 
> > It's not *always* a huge difference. If the nameserver describes resources
> > that go down when the nameserver does (say, at the end of a T1 line),
> > then in practice there is not much difference between "I can't find
> > www.example.com" and "I can't reach www.example.com's IP address".
> 
> If the MX for a domain is known but the mailserver ( target of MX) is
> unreachable mail will be stored and transmitted later. If dns don't work at 
> all the mail will bounce at the sending server.
> 
> The Internet world consist of *significantly* more then http.

Maybe the Internet world does, but what makes you think his service does?

Anyway, if he doesn't care if mail to him bounces, why should we?

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***