Caching only nameserver fails to resolve external zones periodically

[Curtis Rempel]

On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 02:00, Jim Reid wrote:
> >>>>> "Curtis" == Curtis Rempel <curtis at telus.net> writes:
> 
>     Curtis> Please, there is no need to get angry.  I have tried to
>     Curtis> post as much information as possible, as far as my
>     Curtis> understanding of the problem goes.  There is no need to
>     Curtis> belittle my lack of knowledge on the subject 
> 
> You are not being belittled. However I was and am complaining about
> your lack of common sense. Like suggesting BIND is broken -- it runs
> on ~80% of the world's name servers, including most of the root
> servers -- instead of your DNS configuration. And this is *after* you
> were told your DNS setup was broken and how to troubleshoot it. BIND
> works for the rest of the world just fine but somehow won't work for
> you. Is that BIND's fault or yours? Think about this. Hint: you've
> been told what's wrong with your setup and what to do about that.
> The solution doesn't involve replacing BIND with something else.

I don't believe I suggested that I intended to replace BIND with
something else.  

> 
>     Curtis> Since restarting bind would cause it to function again, my
>     Curtis> assumption was that perhaps the cache was maybe corrupted.
>     Curtis> Is this not logical deductive reasoning and one possible
>     Curtis> scenario a person might want to check when troubleshooting?
> 
> No, not when there are more obvious problem sources to eliminate

Obvious to you perhaps.  My lesser understanding of the topic certainly
does not compare to the vast quantity of understanding of BIND you seem
to possess which you apparently use to lash out against the lesser
educated.  Please show a little respect for those of us who fall into
this category.  We're all learning and hoping to get to your level some
day.

> first: like your forwarding configuration. Which has now been
> suggested to you at least twice.
> 

> 
> There is no need to post and repost screeds of useless data. For
> instance including the whole text of any message you reply to. We've
> already seen what has been said before. We don't need to see that
> again, more so when it's 100+ lines of tcpdump that just tell us
> something we already know.

It is clear that I (and apparently many others that you respond to) am
just aggravating you further.  It is not my intent to anger you further
and so I will just go away quietly now and attempt to solve this matter
myself.   As I will not be reading this list further, please don't waste
any more of your time on me by responding to this posting.  Thank you
for your "wisdom" and good day.