q question <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Charles and James, > > Some people may have private domains that they don't wish to disclose. These > people are usually advanced enough to do a clear job with generic a.b.c > notation. Which is pointless. You can't receive mail without advertising the domain in the DNS, so trying to hide the information here achieves precisely nothing. Hiding the domain here just makes the job of list members tougher. I encourage everyone to ignore messages with falsified domain information or logs. Charles -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/ Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- 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
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Henning Brauer
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Dave Sill
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? q question
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Henning Brauer
- Re: Can MX record be CNAME? Robin S. Socha
