Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 03:08:24 -0500 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> To: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net Subject: Re: bind timeouts Message-ID: <20040518080824.GD2038@over-yonder.net> In-Reply-To: <200405180804.i4I8477E019740@gw.catspoiler.org> References: <20040518063753.GB2038@over-yonder.net> <200405180804.i4I8477E019740@gw.catspoiler.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 01:04:07AM -0700 I heard the voice of Don Lewis, and lo! it spake thus: > > That covers the intial lookup, meaning that a CNAME pointing to an MX is > legal. Correct, though I didn't express it too well. > Pointing an MX at a CNAME is likely to break the RFC 974 mail loop > prevention algorithm. Just below the paragraph you quoted: [ Bunch of stuff snipped ] Which all supports the "It's probably not a good idea, but it's not explicitly prohibited anywhere in the RFC's" stance. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040518080824.GD2038>