Markus Stumpf wrote: > The funny thing about this whole thread is that the source of all > problems is probably a lousy provider, that doesn't care for PTR > delegations. So why don't you get yourself a caring one? Actually, they do care about them, but aren't that happy to make them. And I don't like to be dependent on them and would like to fix things myself. Here is another question to keep this hilarous thread alive: Is there any relationship with the MX record and qmail's control/me variable. If they are different, will it cause any trouble? I suppose not, but one can never be sure enough... Regards, Peter
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Kris von Mach
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Charles Cazabon
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Peter van Dijk
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Timothy Mayo
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Aaron Goldblatt
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Tim Legant
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Markus Stumpf
- REMOVE test test
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Peter Peltonen
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Markus Stumpf
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Peter Peltonen
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Peter van Dijk
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Scott D. Yelich
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? q question
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Charles Cazabon
- error with sqwebmail Brendan McAlpine
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? q question
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? James Raftery
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Kris von Mach
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Charles Cazabon
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Colin Palmer