WWW CNAME lookup WARNING with viewdns.info The Next CEO of Stack OverflowCNAME versus an additional A&AAAA recordDo CNAME records result in a second DNS lookup?Alias (CNAME) record cannot be added to this DNS NameHow do I setup a “subdomain empty” DNS CNAME?Getting 404 error with a new CNAME RRCan a CNAME record not include www?Subdomains work fine, but redirect to main when using CNAMEDNS on Windows Server 2016: Not performing recursive lookup when name server returns a CNAMECNAME query fails, but A query returns CNAMEA record for root domain, CNAME for www
Is it possible to replace duplicates of a character with one character using tr
Is there a way to save my career from absolute disaster?
Break Away Valves for Launch
Writing differences on a blackboard
Measuring resistivity of dielectric liquid
Are police here, aren't itthey?
Would this house-rule that treats advantage as a +1 to the roll instead (and disadvantage as -1) and allows them to stack be balanced?
Why does the flight controls check come before arming the autobrake on the A320?
INSERT to a table from a database to other (same SQL Server) using Dynamic SQL
Reference request: Grassmannian and Plucker coordinates in type B, C, D
Is French Guiana a (hard) EU border?
I believe this to be a fraud - hired, then asked to cash check and send cash as Bitcoin
Running a General Election and the European Elections together
unclear about Dynamic Binding
Make solar eclipses exceedingly rare, but still have new moons
How to install OpenCV on Raspbian Stretch?
Some questions about different axiomatic systems for neighbourhoods
How a 64-bit process virtual address space is divided in Linux?
Domestic-to-international connection at Orlando (MCO)
How to invert MapIndexed on a ragged structure? How to construct a tree from rules?
The exact meaning of 'Mom made me a sandwich'
How do I align (1) and (2)?
Should I tutor a student who I know has cheated on their homework?
Is it okay to majorly distort historical facts while writing a fiction story?
WWW CNAME lookup WARNING with viewdns.info
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowCNAME versus an additional A&AAAA recordDo CNAME records result in a second DNS lookup?Alias (CNAME) record cannot be added to this DNS NameHow do I setup a “subdomain empty” DNS CNAME?Getting 404 error with a new CNAME RRCan a CNAME record not include www?Subdomains work fine, but redirect to main when using CNAMEDNS on Windows Server 2016: Not performing recursive lookup when name server returns a CNAMECNAME query fails, but A query returns CNAMEA record for root domain, CNAME for www
Why am I receiving this warning for one of my domains when using ViewDNS.info testing tool:
WWW Record Tests
WARNING WWW CNAME lookup
Oops! You have a CNAME entry for your WWW record but the A record
associated is not returned with it! This means an extra lookup needs
to be performed, unecessarily increasing loading times for your site.
I have searched for this warning report, but nothing meaningful was found, and google search results returns only single page without much relevance.
Does anyone know what does it mean and why this happens? And here is the real kicker - if you check godaddy.com with ViewDNS.info, their domain also receives this warning! It's a little comforting to know that I'm not the only one with this issue, but I wish to understand why? How can I fix this? And more importantly, do I need to change something (1) in my DNS records, or (2) on my server/hosting or (3) in both places or (4) it's related to NameSilo NS somehow?
I have tested 2 of my domains with viewdns.info; one is registered with NameSilo, another one with Domain.com.
exampledomain1.com (NameSilo + VPS)
exampledomain2.com (Domain.com + Shared hosting with cPanel)
Now, as far as my knowledge goes (which is limited when it comes to DNS, as I am self-taught), both are configured in the same way. Of course, the only difference is values of IP addresses, domain names and some parameters. But, overall, they are equal for A and CNAME records.
Examples:
A record on NameSilo
.exampledomain1.com => 1.2.3.4
*.exampledomain1.com => 1.2.3.4
A record on Domain.com
@.exampledomain1.com => 1.2.3.4
*.exampledomain1.com => 1.2.3.4
Notes:
In both domains I use version without www, and on server side I perform all redirects. That part works fine.
In NameSilo I have put blank .exampledomain1.com above, and on Domain.com it is @.exampledomain2.com -- I think the effect is same e.g. points to "root"?
CNAME records on NameSilo/Domain.com respectively
www.exampledomain1.com => exampledomain1.com
www.exampledomain2.com => exampledomain2.com
When I perform dns overall check, exampledomain2.com (Domain.com) returns no errors under section WWW Record Tests > WWW CNAME lookup, however, I do receive a warning for exampledomain1.com (NameSilo).
I have tested domains with dig (wildcard * below means either number 1 or 2):
dig exampledomain*.com
dig www.exampledomain*.com
dig CNAME exampledomain*.com
dig CNAME www.exampledomain*.com
And I received overall very similar reports, meaning it is all OK in this regard.
One thing about NameSilo is that there are some SOA issues, for example:
error: All nameservers have same SOA serial number
warning: SOA serial number format
But, that part is not controlled by me (I think).
Thanks!
domain-name-system cname-record
add a comment |
Why am I receiving this warning for one of my domains when using ViewDNS.info testing tool:
WWW Record Tests
WARNING WWW CNAME lookup
Oops! You have a CNAME entry for your WWW record but the A record
associated is not returned with it! This means an extra lookup needs
to be performed, unecessarily increasing loading times for your site.
I have searched for this warning report, but nothing meaningful was found, and google search results returns only single page without much relevance.
Does anyone know what does it mean and why this happens? And here is the real kicker - if you check godaddy.com with ViewDNS.info, their domain also receives this warning! It's a little comforting to know that I'm not the only one with this issue, but I wish to understand why? How can I fix this? And more importantly, do I need to change something (1) in my DNS records, or (2) on my server/hosting or (3) in both places or (4) it's related to NameSilo NS somehow?
I have tested 2 of my domains with viewdns.info; one is registered with NameSilo, another one with Domain.com.
exampledomain1.com (NameSilo + VPS)
exampledomain2.com (Domain.com + Shared hosting with cPanel)
Now, as far as my knowledge goes (which is limited when it comes to DNS, as I am self-taught), both are configured in the same way. Of course, the only difference is values of IP addresses, domain names and some parameters. But, overall, they are equal for A and CNAME records.
Examples:
A record on NameSilo
.exampledomain1.com => 1.2.3.4
*.exampledomain1.com => 1.2.3.4
A record on Domain.com
@.exampledomain1.com => 1.2.3.4
*.exampledomain1.com => 1.2.3.4
Notes:
In both domains I use version without www, and on server side I perform all redirects. That part works fine.
In NameSilo I have put blank .exampledomain1.com above, and on Domain.com it is @.exampledomain2.com -- I think the effect is same e.g. points to "root"?
CNAME records on NameSilo/Domain.com respectively
www.exampledomain1.com => exampledomain1.com
www.exampledomain2.com => exampledomain2.com
When I perform dns overall check, exampledomain2.com (Domain.com) returns no errors under section WWW Record Tests > WWW CNAME lookup, however, I do receive a warning for exampledomain1.com (NameSilo).
I have tested domains with dig (wildcard * below means either number 1 or 2):
dig exampledomain*.com
dig www.exampledomain*.com
dig CNAME exampledomain*.com
dig CNAME www.exampledomain*.com
And I received overall very similar reports, meaning it is all OK in this regard.
One thing about NameSilo is that there are some SOA issues, for example:
error: All nameservers have same SOA serial number
warning: SOA serial number format
But, that part is not controlled by me (I think).
Thanks!
domain-name-system cname-record
add a comment |
Why am I receiving this warning for one of my domains when using ViewDNS.info testing tool:
WWW Record Tests
WARNING WWW CNAME lookup
Oops! You have a CNAME entry for your WWW record but the A record
associated is not returned with it! This means an extra lookup needs
to be performed, unecessarily increasing loading times for your site.
I have searched for this warning report, but nothing meaningful was found, and google search results returns only single page without much relevance.
Does anyone know what does it mean and why this happens? And here is the real kicker - if you check godaddy.com with ViewDNS.info, their domain also receives this warning! It's a little comforting to know that I'm not the only one with this issue, but I wish to understand why? How can I fix this? And more importantly, do I need to change something (1) in my DNS records, or (2) on my server/hosting or (3) in both places or (4) it's related to NameSilo NS somehow?
I have tested 2 of my domains with viewdns.info; one is registered with NameSilo, another one with Domain.com.
exampledomain1.com (NameSilo + VPS)
exampledomain2.com (Domain.com + Shared hosting with cPanel)
Now, as far as my knowledge goes (which is limited when it comes to DNS, as I am self-taught), both are configured in the same way. Of course, the only difference is values of IP addresses, domain names and some parameters. But, overall, they are equal for A and CNAME records.
Examples:
A record on NameSilo
.exampledomain1.com => 1.2.3.4
*.exampledomain1.com => 1.2.3.4
A record on Domain.com
@.exampledomain1.com => 1.2.3.4
*.exampledomain1.com => 1.2.3.4
Notes:
In both domains I use version without www, and on server side I perform all redirects. That part works fine.
In NameSilo I have put blank .exampledomain1.com above, and on Domain.com it is @.exampledomain2.com -- I think the effect is same e.g. points to "root"?
CNAME records on NameSilo/Domain.com respectively
www.exampledomain1.com => exampledomain1.com
www.exampledomain2.com => exampledomain2.com
When I perform dns overall check, exampledomain2.com (Domain.com) returns no errors under section WWW Record Tests > WWW CNAME lookup, however, I do receive a warning for exampledomain1.com (NameSilo).
I have tested domains with dig (wildcard * below means either number 1 or 2):
dig exampledomain*.com
dig www.exampledomain*.com
dig CNAME exampledomain*.com
dig CNAME www.exampledomain*.com
And I received overall very similar reports, meaning it is all OK in this regard.
One thing about NameSilo is that there are some SOA issues, for example:
error: All nameservers have same SOA serial number
warning: SOA serial number format
But, that part is not controlled by me (I think).
Thanks!
domain-name-system cname-record
Why am I receiving this warning for one of my domains when using ViewDNS.info testing tool:
WWW Record Tests
WARNING WWW CNAME lookup
Oops! You have a CNAME entry for your WWW record but the A record
associated is not returned with it! This means an extra lookup needs
to be performed, unecessarily increasing loading times for your site.
I have searched for this warning report, but nothing meaningful was found, and google search results returns only single page without much relevance.
Does anyone know what does it mean and why this happens? And here is the real kicker - if you check godaddy.com with ViewDNS.info, their domain also receives this warning! It's a little comforting to know that I'm not the only one with this issue, but I wish to understand why? How can I fix this? And more importantly, do I need to change something (1) in my DNS records, or (2) on my server/hosting or (3) in both places or (4) it's related to NameSilo NS somehow?
I have tested 2 of my domains with viewdns.info; one is registered with NameSilo, another one with Domain.com.
exampledomain1.com (NameSilo + VPS)
exampledomain2.com (Domain.com + Shared hosting with cPanel)
Now, as far as my knowledge goes (which is limited when it comes to DNS, as I am self-taught), both are configured in the same way. Of course, the only difference is values of IP addresses, domain names and some parameters. But, overall, they are equal for A and CNAME records.
Examples:
A record on NameSilo
.exampledomain1.com => 1.2.3.4
*.exampledomain1.com => 1.2.3.4
A record on Domain.com
@.exampledomain1.com => 1.2.3.4
*.exampledomain1.com => 1.2.3.4
Notes:
In both domains I use version without www, and on server side I perform all redirects. That part works fine.
In NameSilo I have put blank .exampledomain1.com above, and on Domain.com it is @.exampledomain2.com -- I think the effect is same e.g. points to "root"?
CNAME records on NameSilo/Domain.com respectively
www.exampledomain1.com => exampledomain1.com
www.exampledomain2.com => exampledomain2.com
When I perform dns overall check, exampledomain2.com (Domain.com) returns no errors under section WWW Record Tests > WWW CNAME lookup, however, I do receive a warning for exampledomain1.com (NameSilo).
I have tested domains with dig (wildcard * below means either number 1 or 2):
dig exampledomain*.com
dig www.exampledomain*.com
dig CNAME exampledomain*.com
dig CNAME www.exampledomain*.com
And I received overall very similar reports, meaning it is all OK in this regard.
One thing about NameSilo is that there are some SOA issues, for example:
error: All nameservers have same SOA serial number
warning: SOA serial number format
But, that part is not controlled by me (I think).
Thanks!
domain-name-system cname-record
domain-name-system cname-record
edited yesterday
dev101
asked yesterday
dev101dev101
1135
1135
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
TLDR;
I think the primary cause for the warning "You have a CNAME entry for your WWW record but the A record associated is not returned with it!" is a DNS server setting beyond your control.
You can work around that by making the CNAME record an A record instead.
If you have an authoritative name sever with a zone with (among others) the following two resource records:
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
www.example.com. 3600 IN CNAME example.com.
And the record for www.example.com. is requested, then the minimal response is exactly that CNAME record and a dig query may return:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.example.com. 3600 IN CNAME example.com.
;; Query time: 1 msec
After that minimal response you still don't have the ip-address you need and your resolver will need to perform a second query to see what example.com. resolves to. That query for example.com. will result in the response:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
;; Query time: 1 msec
AFAIK it is customary but not mandatory (in the special case when the CNAME record is in the same zone or a different zone for which the same DNS server is also authoritative) that the name server makes the educated guess that a query that returns a CNAME record type as a response will be predictably be followed by a query for that CNAME.
The name server will preempt that, it will interpret the request, expand the CNAME and simply send both records as a single response. (At least that seems the logic in old RFC 1034 paragraph 4.3.2).
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.example.com. 3600 IN CNAME example.com.
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
;; Query time: 1 msec
That makes the response larger, but will in most cases save the client a second query and a second round-trip.
Your nameserver will be faster when it doesn't have to perform that logic.
Since you don't control the name server, only the data for your own domain you can make the warning go away by simply not using a CNAME record but by using an A record instead and create a zone:
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
www.example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
1
This is overall better, because a CNAME works for other RR types, too. Most likely e.g. www MX and www TXT aren't wanted.
– Esa Jokinen
yesterday
Thank you @HBruijn for detailed explanation! I will do as you suggest. Regards
– dev101
23 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "2"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f960616%2fwww-cname-lookup-warning-with-viewdns-info%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
TLDR;
I think the primary cause for the warning "You have a CNAME entry for your WWW record but the A record associated is not returned with it!" is a DNS server setting beyond your control.
You can work around that by making the CNAME record an A record instead.
If you have an authoritative name sever with a zone with (among others) the following two resource records:
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
www.example.com. 3600 IN CNAME example.com.
And the record for www.example.com. is requested, then the minimal response is exactly that CNAME record and a dig query may return:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.example.com. 3600 IN CNAME example.com.
;; Query time: 1 msec
After that minimal response you still don't have the ip-address you need and your resolver will need to perform a second query to see what example.com. resolves to. That query for example.com. will result in the response:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
;; Query time: 1 msec
AFAIK it is customary but not mandatory (in the special case when the CNAME record is in the same zone or a different zone for which the same DNS server is also authoritative) that the name server makes the educated guess that a query that returns a CNAME record type as a response will be predictably be followed by a query for that CNAME.
The name server will preempt that, it will interpret the request, expand the CNAME and simply send both records as a single response. (At least that seems the logic in old RFC 1034 paragraph 4.3.2).
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.example.com. 3600 IN CNAME example.com.
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
;; Query time: 1 msec
That makes the response larger, but will in most cases save the client a second query and a second round-trip.
Your nameserver will be faster when it doesn't have to perform that logic.
Since you don't control the name server, only the data for your own domain you can make the warning go away by simply not using a CNAME record but by using an A record instead and create a zone:
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
www.example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
1
This is overall better, because a CNAME works for other RR types, too. Most likely e.g. www MX and www TXT aren't wanted.
– Esa Jokinen
yesterday
Thank you @HBruijn for detailed explanation! I will do as you suggest. Regards
– dev101
23 hours ago
add a comment |
TLDR;
I think the primary cause for the warning "You have a CNAME entry for your WWW record but the A record associated is not returned with it!" is a DNS server setting beyond your control.
You can work around that by making the CNAME record an A record instead.
If you have an authoritative name sever with a zone with (among others) the following two resource records:
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
www.example.com. 3600 IN CNAME example.com.
And the record for www.example.com. is requested, then the minimal response is exactly that CNAME record and a dig query may return:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.example.com. 3600 IN CNAME example.com.
;; Query time: 1 msec
After that minimal response you still don't have the ip-address you need and your resolver will need to perform a second query to see what example.com. resolves to. That query for example.com. will result in the response:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
;; Query time: 1 msec
AFAIK it is customary but not mandatory (in the special case when the CNAME record is in the same zone or a different zone for which the same DNS server is also authoritative) that the name server makes the educated guess that a query that returns a CNAME record type as a response will be predictably be followed by a query for that CNAME.
The name server will preempt that, it will interpret the request, expand the CNAME and simply send both records as a single response. (At least that seems the logic in old RFC 1034 paragraph 4.3.2).
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.example.com. 3600 IN CNAME example.com.
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
;; Query time: 1 msec
That makes the response larger, but will in most cases save the client a second query and a second round-trip.
Your nameserver will be faster when it doesn't have to perform that logic.
Since you don't control the name server, only the data for your own domain you can make the warning go away by simply not using a CNAME record but by using an A record instead and create a zone:
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
www.example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
1
This is overall better, because a CNAME works for other RR types, too. Most likely e.g. www MX and www TXT aren't wanted.
– Esa Jokinen
yesterday
Thank you @HBruijn for detailed explanation! I will do as you suggest. Regards
– dev101
23 hours ago
add a comment |
TLDR;
I think the primary cause for the warning "You have a CNAME entry for your WWW record but the A record associated is not returned with it!" is a DNS server setting beyond your control.
You can work around that by making the CNAME record an A record instead.
If you have an authoritative name sever with a zone with (among others) the following two resource records:
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
www.example.com. 3600 IN CNAME example.com.
And the record for www.example.com. is requested, then the minimal response is exactly that CNAME record and a dig query may return:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.example.com. 3600 IN CNAME example.com.
;; Query time: 1 msec
After that minimal response you still don't have the ip-address you need and your resolver will need to perform a second query to see what example.com. resolves to. That query for example.com. will result in the response:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
;; Query time: 1 msec
AFAIK it is customary but not mandatory (in the special case when the CNAME record is in the same zone or a different zone for which the same DNS server is also authoritative) that the name server makes the educated guess that a query that returns a CNAME record type as a response will be predictably be followed by a query for that CNAME.
The name server will preempt that, it will interpret the request, expand the CNAME and simply send both records as a single response. (At least that seems the logic in old RFC 1034 paragraph 4.3.2).
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.example.com. 3600 IN CNAME example.com.
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
;; Query time: 1 msec
That makes the response larger, but will in most cases save the client a second query and a second round-trip.
Your nameserver will be faster when it doesn't have to perform that logic.
Since you don't control the name server, only the data for your own domain you can make the warning go away by simply not using a CNAME record but by using an A record instead and create a zone:
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
www.example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
TLDR;
I think the primary cause for the warning "You have a CNAME entry for your WWW record but the A record associated is not returned with it!" is a DNS server setting beyond your control.
You can work around that by making the CNAME record an A record instead.
If you have an authoritative name sever with a zone with (among others) the following two resource records:
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
www.example.com. 3600 IN CNAME example.com.
And the record for www.example.com. is requested, then the minimal response is exactly that CNAME record and a dig query may return:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.example.com. 3600 IN CNAME example.com.
;; Query time: 1 msec
After that minimal response you still don't have the ip-address you need and your resolver will need to perform a second query to see what example.com. resolves to. That query for example.com. will result in the response:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
;; Query time: 1 msec
AFAIK it is customary but not mandatory (in the special case when the CNAME record is in the same zone or a different zone for which the same DNS server is also authoritative) that the name server makes the educated guess that a query that returns a CNAME record type as a response will be predictably be followed by a query for that CNAME.
The name server will preempt that, it will interpret the request, expand the CNAME and simply send both records as a single response. (At least that seems the logic in old RFC 1034 paragraph 4.3.2).
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.example.com. 3600 IN CNAME example.com.
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
;; Query time: 1 msec
That makes the response larger, but will in most cases save the client a second query and a second round-trip.
Your nameserver will be faster when it doesn't have to perform that logic.
Since you don't control the name server, only the data for your own domain you can make the warning go away by simply not using a CNAME record but by using an A record instead and create a zone:
example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
www.example.com. 3600 IN A 192.0.2.1
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
HBruijnHBruijn
55.9k1190150
55.9k1190150
1
This is overall better, because a CNAME works for other RR types, too. Most likely e.g. www MX and www TXT aren't wanted.
– Esa Jokinen
yesterday
Thank you @HBruijn for detailed explanation! I will do as you suggest. Regards
– dev101
23 hours ago
add a comment |
1
This is overall better, because a CNAME works for other RR types, too. Most likely e.g. www MX and www TXT aren't wanted.
– Esa Jokinen
yesterday
Thank you @HBruijn for detailed explanation! I will do as you suggest. Regards
– dev101
23 hours ago
1
1
This is overall better, because a CNAME works for other RR types, too. Most likely e.g. www MX and www TXT aren't wanted.
– Esa Jokinen
yesterday
This is overall better, because a CNAME works for other RR types, too. Most likely e.g. www MX and www TXT aren't wanted.
– Esa Jokinen
yesterday
Thank you @HBruijn for detailed explanation! I will do as you suggest. Regards
– dev101
23 hours ago
Thank you @HBruijn for detailed explanation! I will do as you suggest. Regards
– dev101
23 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Server Fault!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fserverfault.com%2fquestions%2f960616%2fwww-cname-lookup-warning-with-viewdns-info%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown