Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 08 Feb 2001 16:01:30 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: DNS goofups galore... |
| |
> > > Wouldn't that be true for any CNAME anyway? > > That's the point... > > 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).
-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/
|  |