hi,
can someone explain to me, why BIND 9 complains when you list CNAMEs
as MX records for hosts? i seem to recall that one should not, but:
<RFC974>
The first step for the mailer at LOCAL is to issue a query for MX
RRs for REMOTE. [snip]
Certain responses to the query are considered errors:
Getting no response to the query. [snip]
Getting a response in which the truncation field of the header
is set. [snip]
Getting a response in which the response code is non-zero.
Mailers are expected to do something reasonable in the face of an
error. [snip]
There is one other special case. If the response contains an
answer which is a CNAME RR, it indicates that REMOTE is actually an
alias for some other domain name. The query should be repeated with
the canonical domain name.
If the response does not contain an error response, and does not
contain aliases, its answer section should be a (possibly zero
length) list of MX RRs for domain name REMOTE (or REMOTE's true
domain name if REMOTE was a alias). [snip]
</RFC974>
according to the RFC, this is not a problem and should be handled
just perfectly...
this is just interest...
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; net@madduck
--
as i learn the innermost secrets of the people around me,
they reward me in many ways to keep me quiet.
Attachment:
pgpdVhghIPt63.pgp
Description: PGP signature