Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 8 Feb 2001 19:43:33 -0500 | From | Johannes Erdfelt <> | Subject | Re: DNS goofups galore... |
| |
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001, Michael H. Warfield <mhw@wittsend.com> wrote: > But, wait a minute. CNAME -> CNAME is a "must not". MX -> CNAME > is a "should not". The "should not" leaves it to be implimentation > dependent and not an outright ban. Sooo...
Actually, I had this conversation recently. I checked a variety of places and I couldn't find an RFC that said CNAME -> CNAME is a "must not". In fact I found this snippet in rfc1912 which seems to imply that it is legal:
Also, having chained records such as CNAMEs pointing to CNAMEs may make administration issues easier, but is known to tickle bugs in some resolvers that fail to check loops correctly. As a result some hosts may not be able to resolve such names.
*shrug*
JE
- 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/
|  |