Hi All

I am running a Zimbra box on my local network. I have dnsmasq installed rather than dealing with split dns. I am a bit of a novice with it so was after a bit of advised as only using purely for Zimbra, no dhcp or anything.

1. I have 2 domains. Should I be adding both and if so how should I do this? (config below)
2. I enclose my basic config which I found online. IS this correct

server=8.8.8.8

server=8.8.4.4

mx-host=thisismydomain.co.uk,mail.thisismydomain.co.uk,5

listen-address=127.0.0.1


Thanks

Glenn

As far as I'm aware "split horizon" DNS means restricting who may ask for what. Commonly one configures two or more "views" if a name server serves as a caching-only DNS for LAN users and as authoritative name server for tEh IntarWebs. While it may compound things if you never read the Dnsmasq manual and examples, if one needs to force DNS lookups through the local cache it makes perfect sense to force clients to use Dnsmasq as DHCP daemon since it is easier to have it modify DNS server entries while handing out leases.


If you intend to use it for local purposes only then see the Dnsmasq manual, you could for example use a different hosts file with "--addn-hosts". If you intend to use Dnsmasq as an authoritative Name Server then you should not be running an authoritative DNS on the same system as Whatever Else is running (plus you should have slaves in different networks) and the "listen-address" you gave won't work as it needs to listen on all interfaces. The MX record solution is something you can test, for example using 'dig' with "-t MX" for your local domain. Personally I doubt Dnsmasq will work as a split horizon DNS, let's hope you or somebody else proves me wrong.


//NTLB

As ever, there is much information on DNS Servers on the Wikipedia page. In particular, this note

seems relevant. I assume that this means that it can't do any more general split-horizon DNS than that described. Note also that I haven't tried it and hope not to. In part, this is because the link above refers to the DNSMasq manual and that says:

and that makes my brain hurt, particularly trying to think whether there are any circumstances in which making use of this facility might be a good idea (and, in particular, thinking about whether the lack of ipv6 support could have negative consequences, is not something that I want to do).

Note also that DNSMasq is a good, simple, product which really does one thing and does it well (and you can compare and contrast that description with any description of BIND, for example). There does come a point at which you are stretching the product beyond what it will reasonably do, and at that point you will find that you should consider either a different set of requirements, which might imply a different architecture, or using a product which is actually intended for a job of the complexity required, which will, of necessity, be much more interesting to configure.

HTH.