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/)