From randy@psg.com Sun Dec 19 03:24:33 1999
Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
Delivered-To: djb@cr.yp.to
Received: (qmail 16659 invoked from network); 19 Dec 1999 03:24:32 -0000
Received: from roam.psg.com (206.163.43.51)
  by koobera.math.uic.edu with SMTP; 19 Dec 1999 03:24:32 -0000
Received: from randy by roam.psg.com with local (Exim 3.12 #1)
	id 11zWx7-0000LB-00
	for djb@cr.yp.to; Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:24:09 -0800
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
Subject: Re: *.143.38.in-addr.arpa
References: <19991219005223.16101.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Message-Id: <E11zWx7-0000LB-00@roam.psg.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:24:09 -0800

> Date: 19 Dec 1999 00:52:23 -0000
> From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
> To: namedroppers@internic.net
> Subject: *.143.38.in-addr.arpa
> 
> The servers for 143.38.in-addr.arpa respond to a PTR query for
> 65.113.143.38.in-addr.arpa with the nonsensical referral
> 
>    *.143.38.in-addr.arpa NS pri1.dns.psi.net
>    *.143.38.in-addr.arpa NS pri2.dns.psi.net
>    *.143.38.in-addr.arpa NS pri3.dns.psi.net
> 
> Is this the symptom of a common configuration error or BIND bug? Does
> BIND take any special action as a client to work around such problems?
> 
> According to RFC 1034, this reply ``is bogus and should be ignored.''
> But BIND passes it along to the client---violating the RFC 1034 rule
> that an RD+RA response must be an answer, an NXDOMAIN, or a temporary
> failure. Why doesn't BIND say SERVFAIL here?
> 
> ---Dan

this belongs in bind-users@isc.org, not namedroppers