On 5/9/2014 6:59 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Dave Warren <da...@hireahit.com> wrote:
On 2014-05-08 15:09, Mark Andrews wrote:
But that does not help when you want a MX record at the apex or
some other record at the apex.
I'd argue that it does -- Since the record is now CNAME'd, the MX record is
now under the control of the destination of the CNAME record and MX records
can still be set.
Unfortunately CNAME-pointing-at-MX is an interop disaster area owing to
different MTA's differing opinions about whether it makes sense to rewrite
email addresses in this situation. Avoid.
I actually think that MX records were a boneheaded thing to do, had email
started using SRV records in the first place we might be in a position now
where using SRV records is the defacto standard if not the actual standard for
all services. (No offense to the folks that made MX records happen, I realize
that in historical context it was the correct decision and it solved the very
immediate problem -- I'm just saying that in an ideal world, SRV records
instead of MX records would solved the same problem in a more generic fashion,
and would have pushed us to a better place for other protocols)
It is interesting to look at the old RFCs and see how many false starts it
took to get to the MX design. Mail was the first heavily virtualized
application so I think their failure to generalize was forgivable,
especially since they were also dealing with the massive problem of
gatewaying between dozens of balkanized mail networks.
http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena/reference/net-directory/documents/JANET-Mail-Gateways.ps
Indeed. Hindsight is 20/20. Mail was the "killer app" for the early
Internet, and providing a way to route it over the Internet, with
automatic load-balancing and failover, was a major achievement. Sure,
the IETF could have spent a few more years coming up with a "generic"
way to do things, throwing in -- as SRV eventually did -- port
reassignment, weighting and namespace semantics, but how much would that
delay have stunted the growth of the nascent technology? Maybe it would
have resulted in OSI/X.400 surpassing SMTP as the predominant mail
transport, and we'd all be *miserable*.
- Kevin
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe
from this list
bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
