> -----Original Message----- > From: Ned Freed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 5:25 PM > To: Trevor Paquette > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821 > > As for updating the specification, I have no problem with adding a statement that the result of an MX lookup > MUST NOT be a CNAME if there is consensus to do so. I strongly object, however, to adding statements along > the lines of "this document doesn't update this other RFC". That's a path to madness.
I really like this idea. This will solve the problem of misinterpretation of the RFC.
