it's really irritating when people propogate windoz terminology and, by inference, some type of ownership of standard technical realities by a pretender. there is no such thing as a dns client. there are boxes that resolve url's, hostnames etc. by referencing a dns, but there is no body of code that is a "client" - like something you can download, say next next next finish and ...there! you now have a dns client. to use that terminology to refer to a box that does a dns lookup really muddies the intellectual waters by taking a term used for a specific set of circumstances and diluting it's meaning, thereby confusing any and all that use it.
lately I HAVE seen reference to a "java dns client" that I think is used to keep a 'static looking' reference to a box that is using dhcp, but this
is relatively new and probably should be referenced by some other term.

pjn

I think you are reading this too literally. Do you disagree with the statement that DNS is a client/server protocol? I believe it reasonably fits that definition. If so, then wouldn't the non-server part be a client?

There is software related to the client access of DNS servers. Libaries of code including getservbyname(). What about dig? nslookup? These would be DNS clients, by definition.

That said, I'm personally disgusted by Microsoft's perversion of DNS. Trying to make Windows play nicely with a heterogeneous DNS environment. can be taxing.

<ul id="quote"><h6>qmchenry wrote:</h6>I think you are reading this too literally. Do you disagree with the statement that DNS is a client/server protocol? I believe it reasonably fits that definition. If so, then wouldn't the non-server part be a client?

There is software related to the client access of DNS servers. Libaries of code including getservbyname(). What about dig? nslookup? These would be DNS clients, by definition.

That said, I'm personally disgusted by Microsoft's perversion of DNS. Trying to make Windows play nicely with a heterogeneous DNS environment. can be taxing.</ul>

Get over it, Microsoft does a lot what the federal (and local) government does, they go by THE COMMON DENOMINATOR and create everyday terms so the technical and least technical people can have a conversation. Not a perversion by any standard, more of a universal language. You proved it right there, from your response you understood what the question WAS and what is was PERCEIVED AS, thus judging by who asked that question you would easily know this is not a highly technical user or operator because of the "dns client" statement, so you went with the "not a literal" approach. Case in point, not a perversion, a universal translator.

Thanks a lot! I was having this problem and it worked like a charm.