here's my summary of this issue that scott has been preseverating on for
the past year and a half or so:
-the RFC says MX records can't point to CNAMEs
-scott thinks that is silly and doesn't understand why it should be
-others point out that this was originally due to fears of efficiency
(multiple lookups for the same record).
-scott says: 'oh yeah? it's not that inefficient and so are other things
anyway'.
-others say: then change the RFC to be compliant
-scott says that we should ignore rfcs rather than update them.
-people generally stop taking scott seriously.
i've heard this conversation several times on the list so far and it
always goes like this. am i missing the ways in which this is a productive
conversation for anyone?
todd
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> > > > Pointing to CNAMEs is close to forbidden.
> > > ok, I can't resist:
> > > "WHY" ?
> > 1. Because the law (RFC) says so.
>
> but why was the "law" put in place? perhaps...
>
> > 2. You also want some logic? Because you'd have to start over
> > again resolving the CNAME chain. There were fears of efficiency.
>
> AH! Someone once thought it might not be as efficient.
>
> Which is used more (ie: higher traffic?) -- email or web? No, in
> general... not that it really matters, but lets just say web is a
> "whole heck of a lot more" on popular sites. What is that site uses
> cnames for www.domain? Why is this not against the law, but
> doing the same for email -- is?
>
> > I still don't understand why #1 is not enough for you. Are you in
> > position to change the RFCs? If yes, please do. If not, well...
>
> I'm just questioning the validity of rabid insistance on this statement.
>
> It's only impossible until it's not.
> Certain types of laws can be changed.
>
> Lets approach it another way... just like the "perfect" documentation
> for qmail -- if something is so common -- yet the "law" controlling it
> is seemingly so obscure to locate and is constantly being trampled and
> may not even truly be relevant -- what seems like the more beneficial
> approach: (1) change/ignore the law or (2) continue to try to get the
> seemingly ever increasing major of law breakers to see the err of their
> ways and rehabilitate and repent?
>
> Quick Qmail Quiz!!!!
>
> HOW MANY MAILERS FAIL TO USE CNAMES AS MX TARGETS?! Lets everyone
> name all of them!
>
> Quick Qmail Quiz (for those who passed the first one):
>
> HOW MANY MAILERS REFUSE TO ACCEPT BARE CARRIAGE RETURNS?
>
> Actually, I'm honestly interested in learning the answer to those two
> questions -- without RTFMing all day, without reading FAQs all day and
> without INSTALLING and TRYING each mailer out there.
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
--
Todd Underwood
Chief Technology Officer
Oso Grande Technologies, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
