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










1















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!










share|improve this question




























    1















    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!










    share|improve this question


























      1












      1








      1








      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!










      share|improve this question
















      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






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited yesterday







      dev101

















      asked yesterday









      dev101dev101

      1135




      1135




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          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





          share|improve this answer




















          • 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











          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
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          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









          3














          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





          share|improve this answer




















          • 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















          3














          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





          share|improve this answer




















          • 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













          3












          3








          3







          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





          share|improve this answer















          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






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          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












          • 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

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          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.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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





















































          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          How to write a 12-bar blues melodyI-IV-V blues progressionHow to play the bridges in a standard blues progressionHow does Gdim7 fit in C# minor?question on a certain chord progressionMusicology of Melody12 bar blues, spread rhythm: alternative to 6th chord to avoid finger stretchChord progressions/ Root key/ MelodiesHow to put chords (POP-EDM) under a given lead vocal melody (starting from a good knowledge in music theory)Are there “rules” for improvising with the minor pentatonic scale over 12-bar shuffle?Confusion about blues scale and chords

          What if the end-user didn't have the required library?What is setup.py?What is a clean, pythonic way to have multiple constructors in Python?What does Ruby have that Python doesn't, and vice versa?What is the reason for having '//' in Python?How do I create a namespace package in Python?How to package shared objects that python modules depend on?setuptools vs. distutils: why is distutils still a thing?Navigation in Windows 10 vs code not going to virtualenv library when the same library is installed at user levelPython create package for local usePackaging a project that uses multiple python versionsWhy is permission denied on pip install except for when “--user” is included at end of command?

          Esgonzo ibérico Índice Descrición Distribución Hábitat Ameazas Notas Véxase tamén "Acerca dos nomes dos anfibios e réptiles galegos""Chalcides bedriagai"Chalcides bedriagai en Carrascal, L. M. Salvador, A. (Eds). Enciclopedia virtual de los vertebrados españoles. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid. España.Fotos