Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author: Gerhard Mack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Thanklfully bind 9 barfs if you even try this sort of thing.
>
Personally I find it puzzling what's wrong with MX -> CNAME at all; it
seems like a useful setup without the pitfalls that either NS -> CNAME
or CNAME -> CNAME can cause (NS -> CNAME can trivially result in
irreducible situations; CNAME -> CNAME would require a link maximum
count which could result in obscure breakage.)
-hpa
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/