Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 11:49:00 +0200 From: Rico Pajarola <pajarola@cybertime.ch> To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: MX CNAME Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980724114852.006fd0a4@www.dlc.cybertime.ch>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 09:08 23.07.98 -0700, you wrote:
>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.
CNAMEs are for human convenience only, they are for your users who don't
want to type an un-intuitive or complicated canonical hostname, but for
*you* (the admin) it shouldn't be a problem to point the MX (or any other
record) directly to the A record that the CNAME points to. There should
never be any other records pointing to a CNAME, because it would just make
you do more (or longer) queries. This RFC rule is to allow the clients to
just use simple queries.
Rico Pajarola
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.32.19980724114852.006fd0a4>