Thanks, Ian, for your reply. I don't quite agree with it though.
also sprach Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> [2007.10.09.2102 +0100]:
> The prevailing IETF standard for mail transmission over the Internet
> is STD-10 (RFC821), which says:
RFC 2821 obsoletes STD-10, and says:
3.6 Domains
Only resolvable, fully-qualified, domain names (FQDNs) are permitted
when domain names are used in SMTP. In other words, names that can
be resolved to MX RRs or A RRs (as discussed in section 5) are
permitted, as are CNAME RRs whose targets can be resolved, in turn,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to MX or A RRs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Though I guess it gets interesting when we start to look at the
meaning of "obsoletes":
Abstract
This document is a self-contained specification of the basic protocol
for the Internet electronic mail transport. It consolidates, updates
and clarifies, but doesn't add new or change existing functionality
of the following: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- the original SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) specification of
RFC 821 [30],
yes, one could argue.
> RFC2181 is helpful on this point:
>
> 10.1.1. CNAME terminology
This is interesting for I really always thought it was the other way
around. Now I have to adjust the way I use that word in day to day
parlance.
> And yes, I'm afraid I agree with you - the spammers have indeed won.
> I regret the inconvenience.
No problem; I appreciate your time and the hole you punched for me.
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
"heuristic is computer science jargon for 'doesn't actually work.'"
-- charlie reiman
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)