From owner-freebsd-isp Fri Jul 24 02:48:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA01460 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 02:48:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ppc1.cybertime.ch (ppc1.cybertime.ch [194.191.120.136]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA01420 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 02:48:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pajarola@cybertime.ch) Received: from tyr.cybertime.ch by ppc1.cybertime.ch (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA19676; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 11:47:35 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980724114852.006fd0a4@www.dlc.cybertime.ch> X-Sender: pajarola@www.dlc.cybertime.ch X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 11:49:00 +0200 To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG From: Rico Pajarola Subject: Re: MX CNAME Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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