From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 18 01:08:27 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF61916A4CE; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from regina.plastikos.com (216-107-106-250.wan.networktel.net [216.107.106.250]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF3D143D41; Tue, 18 May 2004 01:08:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fullermd@over-yonder.net) Received: from mortis.over-yonder.net (adsl-19-159-58.jan.bellsouth.net [68.19.159.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by regina.plastikos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419056EEB9; Tue, 18 May 2004 04:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mortis.over-yonder.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 9184420F2F; Tue, 18 May 2004 03:08:24 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 03:08:24 -0500 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" To: Don Lewis Message-ID: <20040518080824.GD2038@over-yonder.net> References: <20040518063753.GB2038@over-yonder.net> <200405180804.i4I8477E019740@gw.catspoiler.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200405180804.i4I8477E019740@gw.catspoiler.org> X-Editor: vi X-OS: FreeBSD User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i-fullermd.2 cc: 4711@chello.at cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org cc: cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net Subject: Re: bind timeouts X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 08:08:27 -0000 On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 01:04:07AM -0700 I heard the voice of Don Lewis, and lo! it spake thus: > > That covers the intial lookup, meaning that a CNAME pointing to an MX is > legal. Correct, though I didn't express it too well. > Pointing an MX at a CNAME is likely to break the RFC 974 mail loop > prevention algorithm. Just below the paragraph you quoted: [ Bunch of stuff snipped ] Which all supports the "It's probably not a good idea, but it's not explicitly prohibited anywhere in the RFC's" stance. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"