Problem solved

To whoever solved the problem... God bless and Merry Christmas!

Wow! I only added the MX record yesterday. I wasn't expecting such a quick confirmation. If this really fixes the problem then today is truly a joyous Christmas!AbE: Maybe Jar or someone will chime in about why an MX record was required and not a PTR record. Last time we had this problem it was fixed by adding a PTR record for dedicated. (our server's name), but the Ensim software doesn't allow you to do that for the server itself (which is where two of the nameservers now are).I'm also wondering why dig no longer lists our old nameservers for the domain, ns1.primarydns.com and ns2.primarydns.com. There still registered as the first two nameservers. And is that related to why the PTR record added a while back no longer works now that we've added local nameservers?DNS is truly the dark side of the Internet.Edited by Admin, : Added sidenote.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

There are several reasons.One is the format of the versions number on the original name servers. They used a single digit for the last set where you used the proper two digit format. This means that the original servers report a different version as authoritative than the two new one.The second problem is that your serial number is malformed. The correct format is YYYMMDD with a two digit update sequence that runs from 00 to 99 added to the end. For the first change made yesterday the serial number should be 2006122401. The serial number you have points to something changed in September of 2005.In addition, the original servers do not have the two new nameservers listed.The reason that an MX record is needed is that queries to a nameserver should be able to return all DNS records, including the address of a mail server if it exists.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion