On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 10:47, Jason Gurtz wrote: > On 4/27/2005 16:36, James Ebright wrote: > > > Honestly, in your case I would use CNAMES liberally and make your MX server > > the same as the PTR reverses but have customers still use the CNAME for > > their > > MUA configurations. This will not appear any different to the end user but > > will bring you into full compliance without using a CNAME for the MX record > > (which is a rfc MUST NOT). > > Hmm, I guess that's not too a bad idea. It'll be a weird name but > definitely more correct. Now the only question is why didn't I consider > that before!?
CNAMEs are a little weird in that *all* related info follows them. In particular if the target of the CNAME has an MX record, the CNAME will have that MX record associated as well. In your case that's probably what you want but it can be confusing if you don't expect that. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
