Re: bind timeouts

From: Matthew D. Fuller <fullermd_at_over-yonder.net>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 03:08:24 -0500
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_at_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"
Received on Mon May 17 2004 - 23:08:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:54 UTC