of day.
Once upon a time the world was 'flat'. For some of you, apparently is still
is 'flat'.
- Original Message -
From: Michael Milligan mi...@acmeps.com
To: Al Stu al_...@verizon.net
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: BIND 9.6 Flaw
:
The A query for mx1.xyz.com delivers the address (A) record of srv1.xyz.com,
1.2.3.4, and also delivers the alias (CNAME) record of mx1.xyz.com.
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
- Original Message -
From: Mark Andrews mark_andr...@isc.org
To: Al Stu
Thus, if an alias is used as the value of an NS or MX record, no address
will be returned with the NS or MX value.
Above statement, belief, perception etc. has already been proven to be a
fallacy (see the network trace attached to one of the previous messages).
Both the CNAME and A record is
:43, Danny Thomas wrote:
Al Stu wrote:
So within the zone SMTP requirements are in fact met when the
MX RR is a CNAME.
you might argue the line of it being OK when additional processing
includes an A record.
In all the time its taken him to type his rants and raves and have his little
dummy
there is
no need for this.
And no it does not matter if there are multiple MX records with different
preferences values.
- Original Message -
From: Mark Andrews mark_andr...@isc.org
To: Al Stu al_...@verizon.net
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 2:55 PM
If you refuse a CNAME then it is your SMTP server that is broken. The SMTP
RFC's clearly state that SMTP servers are to accept and lookup a CNAME.
- Original Message -
From: Scott Haneda talkli...@newgeo.com
To: Mark Andrews mark_andr...@isc.org
Cc: Al Stu al_...@verizon.net; bind
...@newgeo.com
To: Al Stu al_...@verizon.net
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: BIND 9.6 Flaw - CNAME vs. A Record in MX Records are NOT
Illegal
On Jan 26, 2009, at 7:54 PM, Al Stu wrote:
If you refuse a CNAME then it is your SMTP server that is broken
in turn when submitted for an A
query results in both the A and CNAME being returned. Thus meeting the SMTP
RFC requirements.
- Original Message -
From: Mark Andrews mark_andr...@isc.org
To: Al Stu al_...@verizon.net
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 8:41 PM
-
From: Mark Andrews mark_andr...@isc.org
To: Al Stu al_...@verizon.net
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: BIND 9.6 Flaw - CNAME vs. A Record in MX Records are NOT
Illegal
In message b3ba5e37553642e28149093cdee78...@ahsnbw1, Al Stu writes
RFC 2821 is much more recent and clearly documents in sections 3.5 and 5
that CNAME MX RR are permitted and are to be handled by SMTP MTA's.
3.6 Domains
Only resolvable, fully-qualified, domain names (FQDNs) are permitted when
domain names are used in SMTP. In other words, names that can be
No I do not believe an extra step was added. Take the following example for
instance.
STMP server smtp.xyz.com. needs to send a message to some...@xyz.com. An MX
lookup is performed for domain xyz.com. and the domain name of mx.xyz.com is
returned. This is the first sentence:
When a
was replaced with srv1
3) server ip address was replaced with 1.2.3.4
Requirements are met.
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Pounsett m...@conundrum.com
To: Al Stu al_...@verizon.net
Cc: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: BIND 9.6 Flaw - CNAME vs
No it is only two steps, see the attachment (sent in previous message).
Both the CNAME and A record are returned for the mx.xyz.com DNS A request.
And this does met the RFC requirements.
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Pounsett m...@conundrum.com
To: Al Stu al_...@verizon.net
Cc
along with what is only a perceived
rather than actual standard/requirement, and should be removed so as not to
further the fallacy of this perceived perception of a standard/requirement, as
it is neither a standard nor a requirement, and certainly not illegal.
Al Stu
14 matches
Mail list logo
