>This would have been easier if you'd used real names. However... Charles, Why did you tell Peter this would have been easier if he had used real names? I found it very clear and frankly I prefer a.b.c and 1.2.3.4 to reading full domain names and ip numbers when the shorthand can convey the point clearly. * * * | 1) It's SLOW! --> "man tcpserver" - especially -R,-H,-l qmail | 2) Roaming users --> http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#relaying FAQS | 3) Secondary MX --> list in rcpthosts, NOT in locals/virtualdomains * * * | 4) Discard mail --> "#" line ONLY, in appropriate .qmail file _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Markus Stumpf
- REMOVE test test
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Peter Peltonen
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Markus Stumpf
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Peter Peltonen
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Peter van Dijk
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Scott D. Yelich
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? q question
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Charles Cazabon
- error with sqwebmail Brendan McAlpine
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? q question
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? James Raftery
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Kris von Mach
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Charles Cazabon
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Colin Palmer
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? q question
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Charles Cazabon
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? q question
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Charles Cazabon
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Henning Brauer
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? q question
