From: Victor Duchovni (Victor.DuchovniMorganStanley.com)
Date: Tue Jan 02 2007 - 19:51:45 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 12:02:31AM +0100, mouss wrote:

> Victor Duchovni wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 11:28:43PM +0100, mouss wrote:
> >
> >
> >>fine like what? The MX records point to CNAMEs, which is illegal.
> >>
> >
> >Though not RFC compliant, this is not usually a problem...
>
> But the additionnal delay may cause problems, no?

Not usually a problem, when one asks for the IP address of the MX host,
if it is a CNAME, the name-to-IP resolution works the same way as with
non-MX CNAME expansion of [relayhost-cname]. Even if the expansion is not
in the cache, lookup latency is usually short. If there are consistent
problems the CNAME in the MX record is not likely to be the cause.

--
        Viktor.

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.

To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majordomopostfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>

If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]