On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 10:14:38AM -0500, q question wrote: > 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. Because giving real information is *always* right. Giving mangled information is *rarely* right. james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "It's somewhere in the Red Hat district" -- A network engineer's freudian slip when talking about Amsterdam's nightlife at RIPE 38.
- 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
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? q question
