> DNSSever block or implementation has returned a collection from the first
> checkin on 2.5 years back.
I know. I've pointed that out. The CVS lists Charles as the original
entry, but see that there was some CVS re-org that must have lost even
earlier changes.
> If you ask my vote today, I'll say Iterator as it can allow for MX Records
> to be read on demand.
> - Usu. only one MX record is needed. Not sure why 2 would ever be needed
if
mail can be sent to the first one.
I had thought of delayed resolution earlier, but realized that we are still
required to fetch all of the MX records so that we can sort by preference.
The only part that we could save would be resolution of multi-homing for
hosts that we don't need to resolve.
> - Most Domains have multiple Nameservers. No need to figure out all the MX
> records from all the nameservers even for the first. It is not unusual
for
> one of the nameservers to be down.
I don't believe that there is any requirement to check all name servers.
> - Most domains have either 1 MX record or have MX records with same
priority. So in most cases I think sorting/order doesn't achieve much.
PLEASE read the RFC! I quoted the section earlier. There *IS* an RFC
mandated requirement that MX records with the same preference be randomized.
> - It usu. doesn't matter if you send to an MX address that has lower
priority as long as you can send email.
Again, please read the RFC.
> - James really does not need to reread the list of mx records so reset for
> MX Record iteration may be useful but not needed atm.
Iterator doesn't have a reset() method, but it would be quite simple
(trivial) to create a ResetableIterator that would work with all Collection
classes.
At the moment, no one seems to have a compelling reason to change anything,
so we're leaving it as-is.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
