lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.251 / U:3.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site