Scott D Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I just read the bind book after 12 years of Internet work (ya, predating > real widespread bind use... remember ftping to xerox parc?). I did > learn two things, so that was worthwhile. Of course, I borrowed the > book, so it has been returned. Why can't MX records be CNAMES? No one > seems to really know for sure. People will spew "RTFM" and/or "read the > RFC" -- but they can't even specify *which* RFC. Even if one does read > the RFC, it will just state something like "MX records can't point to > CNAMES" -- and never really state why this is so. MX records can't point to CNAMEs because applications don't expect them to and don't handle it correctly. Applications don't expect them to because the standard said that you can't do that. The standard said that because you can have a chain of CNAMEs leading to an MX record, and it probably was judged that having to follow CNAME chains both before and after the MX record was pointless complexity for no actual gain and complicated the meaning of both CNAMEs and MX records. > Really? Again, I worked with TCL back in 93-94 or something. I think > its parser was braindead then and there wasn't a drive to fix it. Tcl has gotten quite a bit better. > If you want to embed perl in everything, welcome to a 2mb base > footprint. Depends on what you mean by footprint. If you have a whole bunch of things linked against Perl, like I do on my typical news server, then a single 1MB copy of libperl.so gets loaded into memory and shared between all of them, and each additional instance of Perl starts looking pretty small. headwall:~> dir /usr/bin/perl -rwxr-xr-x 3 root root 10752 Jun 17 23:14 /usr/bin/perl* > I don't think there is such a thing as qmail ... installed properly. At > least, not in a true working system that does anything besides base > qmail. There are far too many little holes in the system and > documentation to allow for any "standards" -- and due to the amount of > secondary programs that are necessary to have in place to real > functionality out of qmail -- I just don't see how anyone can really > expect qmail to behave the same way twice. I don't *want* my MTA to behave the same way twice; my systems don't look the same. I want my MTA to fit my system. :) > Ya, ya, the list is probably sick of me by now -- but I dare any of them > to honestly try to say that 3 different ISPs are going to have similar > qmail installs. I dare them to honestly say they're going to have similar sendmail or Postfix or Exim installs. :) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
