Re: bind timeouts

On 18 May, Don Lewis wrote:
> 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:

s/2181/2821/ in the above sentence.

>  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],