I think the problem is the the "IN" in the second record does not belong
there. The 2nd field is a type, and both "IN" and "MX" are types, so you
shouldn't have both. The second line is an MX record, not an IN record,
so lose the IN and I think you'll be fine.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: rhelv5-list-bounces@(protected)
[mailto:rhelv5-list-bounces@(protected)
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:17 PM
To: rhelv5-list@(protected)
Subject: [rhelv5-list] named/BIND data file syntax;moving from Solaris 9
to RHEL5

We have been running Sun's Solaris 9 BIND (reported as version 8.3.3)
for some
years and are retiring the old hardware. However, we came across an
apparent
syntax issue in moving the RHEL's BIND.

Here's a piece of the old data file:

oldmail        IN    A     192.168.9.2
          IN    MX    100   mail

Note the empty first field of the second line. Solaris BIND has never
complained about this. "mail" is published as a CNAME in the outside
world,
since it is our main mail server.

However, RHEL's BIND barfs on this missing data field. And, the MX
record gets
lost and not sent upstream if we turn the Solaris BIND off.

What's wrong here? thanks.
--
Tim Evans, TKEvans.com, Inc.  |  5 Chestnut Court
UNIX System Admin Consulting  |  Owings Mills, MD 21117
http://www.tkevans.com/    |  443-394-3864
http://www.come-here.com/News/  |  tkevans@(protected)  

_______________________________________________
rhelv5-list mailing list
rhelv5-list@(protected)
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list

_______________________________________________
rhelv5-list mailing list
rhelv5-list@(protected)
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list