Hi. Am Montag, 21. Mai 2007 00:11:33 schrieb Phil Pennock: > Example 1: > > > > $ host -t mx mail.peter-thomassen.de > > > > mail.peter-thomassen.de MX 10 mail.a4a.de > > > > mail.peter-thomassen.de MX 20 rescue.a4a.de > > > > $ host -t mx mail.glv.at > > > > mail.glv.at CNAME glv.at > > > > glv.at MX 10 mail.a4a.de > > > > glv.at MX 20 rescue.a4a.de > > > > $ > > Example 2: > > $ hostx -t mx sub.glv.at > > sub.glv.at CNAME glv.at > > glv.at MX 20 rescue.a4a.de > > glv.at MX 10 mail.a4a.de > > $ > > In example 2, mail for @sub.glv.at should be processed just fine, as > it's a CNAME pointing to something which resolves.
So, example 2 "valid"? > In example 1, which is all I'd seen so was what I was commenting upon: > in the MX RR-set for "mail.peter-thomassen.de" there existed an MX RR > (priority 10) pointing to "mail.a4a.de"; but "mail.a4a.de" is not a real > name, it's a pointer to the canonical name (ie: there is a CNAME record) > of "glv.at". No, mail.a4a.de resolves directly to 195.225.198.14. The first example actually is about two requests, one for mail.peter-thomassen.de and one for mail.glv.at (not for mail.a4a.de!). The difference is that there are MX RR sets for both peter-thomassen.de and *.peter-thomassen.de, while there is only one MX RR set for glv.at, mapping subdomains by a wildcard CNAME RR. This is why I said the example was bad, and suggested to inspect sub.glv.at (instead of mail.glv.at). -- If I got it right, such policy is allowed. Bye, -- Peter Thomassen • Steigerwaldstr. 4 • 97076 Würzburg • Germany http://www.peter-thomassen.de/ • [EMAIL PROTECTED] fon +49-931-2705351 • mobil +49-176-63159879
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
