On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 15:18, Sam Drinkard wrote: > 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* :-) A 'lame server' means you are delegating (vs NS records) to servers that don't respond for the zone you've specified. NS records in the wrong form would give that effect. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com