Messages in this thread |  | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: DNS goofups galore... | Date | 8 Feb 2001 14:58:30 -0800 |
| |
Followup to: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10102081346001.16513-100000@innerfire.net> By author: Gerhard Mack <gmack@innerfire.net> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > 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 -- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |