3 ms·
Correct, and very common misconception. While I applaud the author's attempts to simplify DNS, it's somewhat evident they've not looked at the very clearly wr
by axaxs 13y ago
Correct, and very common misconception. While I applaud the author's attempts to simplify DNS, it's somewhat evident they've not looked at the very clearly written RFCs which cover both mistakes.
- zrail 13y agoThanks for the corrections! I'll fix the article when I get back to a computer.
- zrail 13y agoFixed both errors. Thanks guys!
- axaxs 13y agoSorry if I came off as condescending, it looked that way when I read it again. The rfcs are 1034 and 35 and are very interesting reads. 5321 is good too. For example, did you know that you don't need an mx record for email? If none is present, it will default to the a record. DNSSEC is in 4034, among others. Also, I think maybe more explanation about the main benefit of CNAMES, a virtual host based setup where many domains point to the same IP.
- zrail 13y agoNo worries, you were right on the money. I've linked those RFCs as further reading in the wrap-up section.