From owner-freebsd-isp Thu Jul 23 09:06:54 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA09415 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 09:06:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com (biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com [205.162.1.28]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA09406 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 09:06:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jas@flyingfox.com) Received: (from jas@localhost) by biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id JAA12107; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 09:08:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 09:08:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Shankland Message-Id: <199807231608.JAA12107@biggusdiskus.flyingfox.com> To: greg@safetyweb.com.au, root@internet.dk Subject: Re: MX CNAME Cc: isp@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980723175056.03c3ed00@bach> Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I also wonder what is the rationale behind the "no MX to a CNAME" rule. It seems useful ("mailhost" can be a CNAME to the physical machine that is hosting mail), and not harmful; except, of course, that it's illegal, so we don't do it. Another alternative, besides the ones that have already been mentioned, is to do the indirection at the IP address level, rather than at the DNS level. Since modern OS's like FreeBSD allow you to associate additional IP addresses with a machine, you can always dedicate an IP address to "mailhost" (which lets you use an A record for mailhost), then bind it as an additional IP address to whichever host you want to instantiate mail services on. Jim Shankland Flying Fox Computer Systems, Inc. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message