"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Antill) writes:
>
> >"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> % telnet mail.bar.org smtp
> >> 220 mail.foo.org ESMTP ready
> >>
> >>
> >> This kills loop detection. Yes,
"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Antill) writes:
"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
% telnet mail.bar.org smtp
220 mail.foo.org ESMTP ready
This kills loop detection. Yes, it is done this way =%-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Henning P. Schmiedehausen) wrote on 12.02.01 in
><968mjv$l9t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Gyselinck) writes:
>>
>> >There's not really something wrong with MX's pointing to CNAME's. It's
>> >just that some
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Antill) writes:
>"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> % telnet mail.bar.org smtp
>> 220 mail.foo.org ESMTP ready
>>
>>
>> This kills loop detection. Yes, it is done this way =%-) and it breaks
>> if done wrong.
> This is humour,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Antill) writes:
"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
% telnet mail.bar.org smtp
220 mail.foo.org ESMTP ready
This kills loop detection. Yes, it is done this way =%-) and it breaks
if done wrong.
This is humour, yeh ?
No.
I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Henning P. Schmiedehausen) wrote on 12.02.01 in
968mjv$l9t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Gyselinck) writes:
There's not really something wrong with MX's pointing to CNAME's. It's
just that some mailservers could
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Henning P. Schmiedehausen) wrote on 12.02.01 in
<968mjv$l9t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Gyselinck) writes:
>
> >There's not really something wrong with MX's pointing to CNAME's. It's
> >just that some mailservers could (can?) not handle this. So if you
"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin) writes:
>
> >> In other words, you do a lookup, you start with a primary lookup
> >> and then possibly a second lookup to resolve an MX or CNAME. It's only
> >> the MX that points to a CNAME
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin) writes:
>> In other words, you do a lookup, you start with a primary lookup
>> and then possibly a second lookup to resolve an MX or CNAME. It's only
>> the MX that points to a CNAME that results in yet another lookup. An
>> MX pointing to a CNAME is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Gyselinck) writes:
>There's not really something wrong with MX's pointing to CNAME's. It's just that
>some mailservers could (can?) not handle this. So if you want to be able to receive
>mail from all kinds of mailservers, don't use CNAME's for MX's.
No. It breaks a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin) writes:
In other words, you do a lookup, you start with a primary lookup
and then possibly a second lookup to resolve an MX or CNAME. It's only
the MX that points to a CNAME that results in yet another lookup. An
MX pointing to a CNAME is almost
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Gyselinck) writes:
There's not really something wrong with MX's pointing to CNAME's. It's just that
some mailservers could (can?) not handle this. So if you want to be able to receive
mail from all kinds of mailservers, don't use CNAME's for MX's.
No. It breaks a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Henning P. Schmiedehausen) wrote on 12.02.01 in
968mjv$l9t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Gyselinck) writes:
There's not really something wrong with MX's pointing to CNAME's. It's
just that some mailservers could (can?) not handle this. So if you want to
be
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:58:30PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 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
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 01:50:04AM +, Aaron Denney wrote:
> Michael H. Warfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But, wait a minute. CNAME -> CNAME is a "must not".
> Cite the RFC please. 1034 says
> # Domain names in RRs which point at another name should always point at
> # the
Michael H. Warfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, wait a minute. CNAME -> CNAME is a "must not".
Cite the RFC please. 1034 says
# Domain names in RRs which point at another name should always point at
# the primary name and not the alias.
and
# domain software should not fail when
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001, Michael H. Warfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, wait a minute. CNAME -> CNAME is a "must not". MX -> CNAME
> is a "should not". The "should not" leaves it to be implimentation
> dependent and not an outright ban. Sooo...
Actually, I had this conversation
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 04:11:39PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> "Michael H. Warfield" wrote:
> >
> > > Please explain how there is any different between an CNAME or MX pointing
> > > to an A record in a different SOA versus an MX pointing to a CNAME
> > > pointing to an A record where at least
"Michael H. Warfield" wrote:
>
> > Please explain how there is any different between an CNAME or MX pointing
> > to an A record in a different SOA versus an MX pointing to a CNAME
> > pointing to an A record where at least one pair is local (same SOA).
>
> Ah! But now you are placing
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 04:01:30PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > Wouldn't that be true for any CNAME anyway?
> > That's the point...
> > In other words, you do a lookup, you start with a primary lookup
> > and then possibly a second lookup to resolve an MX or CNAME. It's
>
> > Wouldn't that be true for any CNAME anyway?
>
> That's the point...
>
> In other words, you do a lookup, you start with a primary lookup
> and then possibly a second lookup to resolve an MX or CNAME. It's only
> the MX that points to a CNAME that results in yet another
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 03:47:17PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> "Michael H. Warfield" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:58:30PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > By author:Gerhard Mack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
"Michael H. Warfield" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:58:30PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > 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.
>
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:58:30PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 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
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
Thanklfully bind 9 barfs if you even try this sort of thing.
Gerhard
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matti Aarnio) writes:
>
> >NSes and MXes must ALWAYS point to NAMEs with A//A6 records for
> >them, specifically those names MUST NOT be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matti Aarnio) writes:
>NSes and MXes must ALWAYS point to NAMEs with A//A6 records for
>them, specifically those names MUST NOT be CNAMEs. With NSes the
NS: must not
MX: should not
...stickler for details. ;-)
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.)
Hello Matti ,
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Matti Aarnio wrote:
...snip...
> Answer to the self-education question above:
>
> The NAME fields in usual BIND systems get appended the current $ORIGIN
> string value when the data in the field does not end with a dot:
>
> Wrong: IN MX 10
Folks,
Do inform your DNS administrators that they better do things
correctly, or email won't work. (Nor much else..)
Some people are telling around heretic information that it is
all right to use IP(v4) address literal TEXT in places which
are intended for NAMES.
As a result, the mind-set
Hello Matti ,
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Matti Aarnio wrote:
...snip...
Answer to the self-education question above:
The NAME fields in usual BIND systems get appended the current $ORIGIN
string value when the data in the field does not end with a dot:
Wrong: IN MX 10
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matti Aarnio) writes:
NSes and MXes must ALWAYS point to NAMEs with A//A6 records for
them, specifically those names MUST NOT be CNAMEs. With NSes the
NS: must not
MX: should not
...stickler for details. ;-)
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.)
Thanklfully bind 9 barfs if you even try this sort of thing.
Gerhard
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matti Aarnio) writes:
NSes and MXes must ALWAYS point to NAMEs with A//A6 records for
them, specifically those names MUST NOT be CNAMEs.
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
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:58:30PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
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 -
"Michael H. Warfield" wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:58:30PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
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
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 03:47:17PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
"Michael H. Warfield" wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:58:30PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By author:Gerhard Mack [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
Wouldn't that be true for any CNAME anyway?
That's the point...
In other words, you do a lookup, you start with a primary lookup
and then possibly a second lookup to resolve an MX or CNAME. It's only
the MX that points to a CNAME that results in yet another lookup.
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 04:01:30PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Wouldn't that be true for any CNAME anyway?
That's the point...
In other words, you do a lookup, you start with a primary lookup
and then possibly a second lookup to resolve an MX or CNAME. It's only
"Michael H. Warfield" wrote:
Please explain how there is any different between an CNAME or MX pointing
to an A record in a different SOA versus an MX pointing to a CNAME
pointing to an A record where at least one pair is local (same SOA).
Ah! But now you are placing conditions
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 04:11:39PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
"Michael H. Warfield" wrote:
Please explain how there is any different between an CNAME or MX pointing
to an A record in a different SOA versus an MX pointing to a CNAME
pointing to an A record where at least one pair is
Michael H. Warfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, wait a minute. CNAME - CNAME is a "must not".
Cite the RFC please. 1034 says
# Domain names in RRs which point at another name should always point at
# the primary name and not the alias.
and
# domain software should not fail when
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 01:50:04AM +, Aaron Denney wrote:
Michael H. Warfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, wait a minute. CNAME - CNAME is a "must not".
Cite the RFC please. 1034 says
# Domain names in RRs which point at another name should always point at
# the primary name
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:58:30PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
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
43 matches
Mail list logo
