|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Subject: Re: OT: DNS - MX
From: Ralf Hildebrandt (Ralf.Hildebrandt
berliner-volksbank.de)Date: Thu Nov 02 2000 - 02:47:30 CST
- Next message: J.Thomsen: "Postponing delivery and maximal_queue_lifetime ?"
- Previous message: Sasa Babic: "OT: DNS - MX"
- In reply to: Sasa Babic: "OT: DNS - MX"
- Next in thread: Baron Fujimoto: "Re: OT: DNS - MX"
- Reply: Ralf Hildebrandt: "Re: OT: DNS - MX"
- Reply: Baron Fujimoto: "Re: OT: DNS - MX"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sasa Babic wrote:
> Someone mentioned that MX record shouldn't point to a CNAME record. So,
> is it something that is demanded by a RFC or is it just considered a
> good practise? Or am I completly on the wrong track?
http://www.acmebw.com/askmrdns/bind-messages.htm
always good if you don't know what your BIND is barking about.
But back to the question:
http://www.intac.com/~cdp/cptd-faq/section6.html
see "Question 6.6. Can an NS record point to a CNAME ?":
... snip ...
Only one RR type is allowed to refer, in its data field, to a CNAME, and
that's CNAME itself. So CNAMEs can refer to CNAMEs but NSs and MXs
cannot.
...snip ...
-- ralf.hildebrandtinnominate.com system engineer innominate AG the linux architects tel: +49-30-308806-62 fax: -77 http://www.innominate.com
- Next message: J.Thomsen: "Postponing delivery and maximal_queue_lifetime ?"
- Previous message: Sasa Babic: "OT: DNS - MX"
- In reply to: Sasa Babic: "OT: DNS - MX"
- Next in thread: Baron Fujimoto: "Re: OT: DNS - MX"
- Reply: Ralf Hildebrandt: "Re: OT: DNS - MX"
- Reply: Baron Fujimoto: "Re: OT: DNS - MX"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]