>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark >Martinec >Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 10:05 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: The "such responses" extension sentence (was: Re: MX to CNAME and >(mis)interpretation of 2821) > > >SM wrote: >> When a domain name associated with an MX RR is looked up and >> the associated data field obtained, the data field of that >> response MUST contain a fully-qualified domain name. That >> fully-qualified domain name, when queried, MUST return at >> least one address record (e.g., A or AAAA RR) that gives the >> IP address of the SMTP server to which the message should >> be directed. Any other response, specifically including a >> value that will return a CNAME record when queried, lies >> outside the scope of this standard. The prohibition on CNAME >> RRs is discussed in more detail in RFC 2181, Section 10.3 [29]. > >That looks like a good compromise to me. >I'd remove the word 'specifically', it makes me read the statement >more than once to be sure of its meaning, and is probably redundant. > > Mark
As the culprit who actually started all of this... (sorry!). I like this one the best. The creation of standards and (unfortunately) the implementation thereof can be two very different things based on someone's interpretation. This paragraph (or how I interpret it anyway) eliminates this possibility. I've enjoyed reading everyone's view on this; good opinions all around.
