From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 27 09:46:17 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D81BA106566C for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:46:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from petefrench@ticketswitch.com) Received: from constantine.ticketswitch.com (constantine.ticketswitch.com [IPv6:2002:57e0:1d4e:1::3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B09A8FC0A for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:46:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dilbert.rattatosk ([10.64.50.6] helo=dilbert.ticketswitch.com) by constantine.ticketswitch.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1OovVg-0005Bp-9K; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:46:08 +0100 Received: from petefrench by dilbert.ticketswitch.com with local (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1OovVg-0009O0-8F; Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:46:08 +0100 Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:46:08 +0100 Message-Id: To: marka@isc.org, ronald-freebsd8@klop.yi.org In-Reply-To: From: Pete French Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, avg@icyb.net.ua Subject: Re: cname replace in mail address? [off-topic] (Re: Attn Ronald Klop) X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:46:17 -0000 > Mandatory? I'm googling, but can't find a document that declares it > mandatory and only sendmail seems to do it. > I think it is lame to use DNS info to rewrite e-mail addresses, but the > person who made it 'mandatory' will have good reasons for it. Rewiting may not be mandatory, but it is certainly true that a domain needs to have either an A record or an MX record to recieve email according to the spec. Your has neither, and given the presence of a CNAME then rewriting the address to use that CNAME doesnt seem like an unreasonable thing to do. You should add an MX record to that domain - but mixing MX and CNAME is a fairly bad idea too (and that should be easily found in google). -pete.