From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue May 18 16:12:34 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 552C216A652
	for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>;
	Tue, 18 May 2004 16:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D18C144017
	for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>;
	Tue, 18 May 2004 15:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4IMBt7E021639;
	Tue, 18 May 2004 15:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200405182211.i4IMBt7E021639@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: randy@psg.com
In-Reply-To: <16554.10114.704299.907232@ran.psg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: 4711@chello.at
cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
cc: cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net
cc: fullermd@over-yonder.net
Subject: Re: bind timeouts
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 23:12:36 -0000

On 18 May, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> no.  it means an MX referring to a CNAME which resolves to an A
>> Not by my reading.
> 
> then maybe try reading rfc 2181 sec 10.3

This part of RFC 2181 is a fairly substantial change from RFC 974, which
is interesting because RFC 2181 also says:

 Abstract

   This document is a self-contained specification of the basic protocol
   for the Internet electronic mail transport.  It consolidates, updates
   and clarifies, but doesn't add new or change existing functionality
   of the following:

   -  the original SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) specification of
      RFC 821 [30],

   -  domain name system requirements and implications for mail
      transport from RFC 1035 [22] and RFC 974 [27],