Vicente Aguilar wrote: > El mié, 07-09-2005 a las 10:03 -0500, Chris Garrigues escribió: > >>>[...] still trying to convince them that their DNS >>>configuration is not right and that they should fix it, but trying to >>>convince another company that they're doing something wrong is not >>>always easy... >> >>Pointing them at dnsreport.com may add weight to your argument. > > > I didn't knew that page, and it shows the problem. > > Thanks! > > And just in case anybody else has a similar problem in the future, I've > found this on RFC 1123: > > 5.2.2 Canonicalization: RFC-821 Section 3.1 > > The domain names that a Sender-SMTP sends in MAIL and RCPT > commands MUST have been "canonicalized," i.e., they must be > fully-qualified principal names or domain literals, not > nicknames or domain abbreviations. A canonicalized name either > identifies a host directly or is an MX name; it cannot be a > CNAME. > > So I guess that the domain rewriting that qmail does is RIGHT.
I don't know if you would call that "right", if you would totally follow the RFCs, then the mail should not be accepted by qmail. But not to follow the CNAME entry and using the A-record of the corresponding domain instead (isn't that what happened?) doesn't sound right to me either. > > BTW: I'm still puzzled as to why gmail and others work with this DNS > configuration. :-? > The follow the golden rule of interoperability, while qmail often tries to "teach" others the hard way... "Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you send." Philipp
