On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Jeff Potter <
> [email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> The other issue: a sending server can resolve the CNAME and rewrite the
> >> address on you. I saw this years ago.
> >>
> >> E.g.:
> >>
> >> foo.com with a CNAME of “bar.com”
> >> foo.com with an MX of “some-good-mailserver.example.com”
>
> On 22.01.15 19:23, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> >Well, this is in direct violation of the DNS specification for CNAME. When
> >foo.com is a CNAME, it CANNOT have any other records, so the behaviour of
> >that MX record is undefined, whether it breaks in the way you describe or
> >foo.com simply won't resolve, is too risky to rely on.
>
> I believe that was supposed to be:
>
> foo.com with a CNAME of “bar.com”
>
So you wrote it in reverse order, and really meant that for the domain
bar.com, there is a CNAME record pointing to foo.com?
In that case, foo.com won't have any technical problems with that.
--
Jan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.
Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
_______________________________________________
courier-users mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
