Malcolm Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By the way, it's ironic that Courier *doesn't* accept the > [EMAIL PROTECTED] notation, with all this frothing about the > importance of standards!
Agreed. > Plus, I repeat my question, this time to you: > > What might an MX->CNAME mean if not "follow CNAME to A"? IMO, it means exactly that. But Carlos' initial mail suggested accepting MX->IP, not MX->CNAME (which is not forbidden by the RFCs, and AFAICT is already being accepted by Courier). ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
