On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 07:14, Dan Yost wrote: > > > moves past an obvious RFC violation. So, with all trepidation, I simply > > > ask: shouldn't Courier trim the RR list as per RFC 974, eliminating > > > irrelevant RRs, and then try to deliver based on what's left after the > > > > No. There's nothing 'irrelevant' about it. It's an MX record, for the > > requested hostname. What's so 'irrelevant' about it? > > > > True--I'd been thinking that "irrelevant" (as quoted in the RFC) may not > apply in this case. It seems to me that since the RFC addresses > "irrelevant" records only, and its wording certainly doesn't seem to > include "errant" records, RFC 974 itself is irrelevant here. I'd say > errant != irrelevant (at least not necessarily), so RFC 974 doesn't seem > to apply. Correct? Maybe I should've made that bet...
Could be. If you look at the part of RFC 974 in question, it's very specific about what records are "irrelevant", and neither of the suggested measures would make an errant record irrelevant. _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
