[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: DNS goofups galore...
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:58:30PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to: <>
> By author: Gerhard Mack <>
> In newsgroup:
> >
> > Thanklfully bind 9 barfs if you even try this sort of thing.
> >
> Personally I find it puzzling what's wrong with MX -> CNAME at all; it
> seems like a useful setup without the pitfalls that either NS -> CNAME
> or CNAME -> CNAME can cause (NS -> CNAME can trivially result in
> irreducible situations; CNAME -> CNAME would require a link maximum
> count which could result in obscure breakage.)
> -hpa

There's not really something wrong with MX's pointing to CNAME's. It's just that some mailservers could (can?) not handle this. So if you want to be able to receive mail from all kinds of mailservers, don't use CNAME's for MX's.


Jan Gyselinck
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.152 / U:3.028 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site