[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: DNS goofups galore... (H. Peter Anvin) writes:

>> In other words, you do a lookup, you start with a primary lookup
>> and then possibly a second lookup to resolve an MX or CNAME. It's only
>> the MX that points to a CNAME that results in yet another lookup. An
>> MX pointing to a CNAME is almost (almost, but not quite) as bad as a
>> CNAME pointing to a CNAME.

>There is no reducibility problem for MX -> CNAME, unlike the CNAME ->
>CNAME case.

>Please explain how there is any different between an CNAME or MX pointing
>to an A record in a different SOA versus an MX pointing to a CNAME
>pointing to an A record where at least one pair is local (same SOA).

CNAME is the "canonical name" of a host. Not an alias. There is good
decriptions for the problem with this in the bat book. Basically it
breaks if your mailer expects one host on the other side (
and suddently the host reports as The sender is
allowed to assume that the name reported after the "220" greeting
matches the name in the MX. This is impossible with a CNAME: IN A IN CNAME IN MX 10

% telnet smtp
220 ESMTP ready

This kills loop detection. Yes, it is done this way =%-) and it breaks
if done wrong.

Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH

Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
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 13:13    [W:0.103 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site