On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:47 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 02:32:31PM -0500, David Benigni wrote: > > trust me, I'm the same way. I still can't get my fingers to type dig > > instead of nslookup. > > Ooh, you probably don't want to anyway. I see this *so* many times (and did > it myself). The nslookup deprecation message says: > > Note: nslookup is deprecated and may be removed from future releases. > Consider using the `dig' or `host' programs instead. Run nslookup with > the `-sil[ent]' option to prevent this message from appearing. > > and for some reason, people's brains shut off when they get to "dig", > without going on to the next command, "host". I know mine did, and it took > me a while to figure out this important bit of information: > > The "host" command is the one you want 99% of the time. It does what > nslookup was mostly used for, *way better*. > > 'dig' is generally pointless. Pointless? Pointless!?!?! It's the best thing since sliced bread and I *always* use it, in preference to "host" and "nslookup", because it tells me so much more (e.g. whether an answer is authoritative or not), and in a similar format to the DNS zone files themselves. Each to their own I suppose. Paul. -- Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
