Instead of writing a novel here, tried to find a post to explain what I think is happening.

Try this

She’s certainly losing that seat, to be fair.

How is it clickbait? It literally says the thing in the title

I think it’s more about calling her out.

She’s about to be voted out by Planter if the overwhelming polls are even barely accurate.

Out of curiosity, does this machine in question have a hostname that falls under the domain you’re using for DNS resolution?

Also, what are the contents of /etc/nsswitch.conf and /etc/resolv.conf?

Switch those CNAME records to A records, clear your cache, then see how it works.

I can promise you this is not a resolved issue. If it was, you’d be seeing posts like this everywhere. It’s behaving as it should.

Your setup on the Firewalls is not what I would call a “standard” setup. There is both a proper DNS forwarded, AND what they are calling “DNS Filtering” at play with that service. I can’t see your record setup, but depending on which gives the defacto answers when you make a request, you may get conflicting responses, so I would just do away with any kind of non-A records in your setup and see what happens since their docs specifically say it’s only meant for those records and not CNAME or Alias.

CNAME gives you no benefit to what you’re doing here anyway since you only have the couple machines and not MANY records pointing to various places or using named hosts requests or something.

Yes, because it would actually as an accidental Round-Robin return in the case that there is a conflict with a wildcard A record, and a CNAME which isn’t supposed to be working.

This is a combo of your DNS setup being misconfigured, and DNS caching working differently on Windows vs Linux.

Resolution is just fixing your DNS to work properly.

From the docs you linked it specifically says it only works for A or AAAA records. Don’t know how your other machines are somehow working as you thought they would.

Exciting. Can’t wait to hear the insane denials and excuses as to why it won’t be released, OR…“we lost it”.

Did you not read and understand the second picture you posted at all?

The largest percentage of donors is at the top there. It’s not AIPAC or corporate interests, it’s small donors.

What in the world are you not understanding about your own posts here?

Do you either not math or stats? It seems you don’t understand how numbers or percentages work…

Not trying to be insulting, but c’mon here. You posted something you clearly do not understand, to a response you don’t understand, and are clearly just trying to prove a point you failed at.

Literally data online saying that she didn’t take AIPAC money.

Alliances or voting history are different things. Don’t try to make a point if you can’t back it up.

Not sure what you’re trying to illustrate here?

The majority of her campaign funds come from small donors. She doesn’t take AIPAC money. What’s your point?

Nope.

I like Crockett for being a bit of a firecracker. She’s smart, she knows the law, and knows the exact right spots to push on to point out the obvious corruption of the right. She seems incorruptible.

Talarico has a softer approach, isn’t as combative, and leans on his faith a bit much I would say. I would say he probably plays better in Texas politics than Crockett might. He also seems incorruptible.

Two different personalities who are both qualified for what we need right now, but two different tools in a toolbox.

80% for maximum insult. After taxes, you got nothing.

So…your rationale is that Donald Trump and his cronies are acting like Nazis, so now Gavin Newsom is also responsible?

Shit, bro. You better just go after everyone that doesn’t have the legal capability to do anything about that. Seems like you’re maybe distracted by the wrong thing and not able to think of how to attack those problems aside from blaming absolutely everyone and doing nothing about it in the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buK45NW_ikI

If you were given a microphone in front of a huge crowd of people, started detailing all the reasons why you think he shouldn’t be a candidate for president, and then closed with “YEAH, LET’S TAR AND FEATHER THIS FUCKER, THEN LET’S BAN HIM FROM GOVERNMENT!!! HYAAAAAA!!!”

You think those people would be likely to be still think you’re to be treated seriously and still follow your suggestions?

We need people to speak strongly, but not be insane.