Comment 56 for bug 1003842

Hi Simon.

Before I forget to ask: can you please update dnsmasq(8) to include under "--strict-order" a description of what happens when nameserver addresses are passed in via D-Bus instead of via a file?

You wrote,
> you can very easily provide the same behaviour - only pass the first nameserver to dnsmasq

Because NM doesn't use dnsmasq to cache, if NM were to give dnsmasq only one address then I guess the only service that dnsmasq would still provide is that of name-to-server mapping.

And it turns out that the way NM currently uses dnsmasq to do this is seriously flawed. So I conclude that it's better for NM not to use dnsmasq at all until these problems are solved.

> [That NM only supplies one nameserver address per domain name]
> is a different problem, and could be solved.

From the man page it's not completely clear how to solve it. Can you confirm (1) that it's possible to give multiple server options as follows

    server=/google.com/1.2.3.4
    server=/google.com/5.6.7.8

and that the result will be that 1.2.3.4 and 5.6.7.8 will be treated equally for the purpose of resolving names in domain google.com? (2) And likewise via D-Bus?

(3) What effect does strict-order have on this?

> Ironically, I think the
> problem arises because for nameservers associated with particular
> domains, the equivalent of --strict-order is always in play.

What you say here suggests that my proposition #1 above is false. If #1 is false then it seems that in order to fix