On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 22:07 +0100, Maciej Żenczykowski wrote: 
> @        IN     NS      216.104.158.222
> @        IN     NS      216.104.128.37
> @        IN     NS      216.104.128.38

Specifying IP's for NS'es is illegal - NS'es should be hostnames - 
themselves posessing A or AAAA records (for the interest of quick lookup 
times these hostnames should be from within the domain they're NS'ing 
for...)  In other words, you should have:

@ IN NS ns1
@ IN NS ns2
@ IN NS ns3
ns1 IN A 216.104.158.222
ns2 IN A 216.104.128.37
ns3 IN A 216.104.128.38


> wa4phy.net.             A       216.104.158.222
this is just "@ A ..."
> vortex.wa4phy.net.      A       216.104.158.222
this is just "vortex A ..."
> ns.wa4phy.net.          A       216.104.158.222
this is just "ns A ..."
> localhost               A       127.0.0.1
this is weird because it is localhost.wa4phy.net. A 127.0.0.1
> 1       IN      PTR             localhost.wa4phy.net.
Ah so maybe the weird localhost is what you wanted?

Cheers,
MaZe.

If I remember correctly, the format I used came from the book associated with FreeBSD 2.3 or perhaps earlier.  Pretty much verbatim from the old days of the berkely format of the 80's

I'm no bind guru by any sort of means, and I know there were significant changes between bind 8 and bind 9.  I was more curious why it was considered lame server whereas prior to CentOS, it worked well, and was not considered lame under BSD.  Everything still works, but there are some warnings if you look at the report from http://dnsreport.com plugging in my domain name.  Part of that problem is upstream, which I can get corrected *I think* :-)

Snowman