Stefan Jakobs wrote: > On Tuesday 21 October 2008 14:57, Matt Kettler wrote: > <snip> > >> In general it is recommended to not point a MX record to a CNAME, but >> that's just to reduce repetative querries. It is extraordinarily >> commonplace in the real world, and AFAIK 100% RFC legal. >> > > I don't think so. See: http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/policy-bogusmx.php > > "Section 10.3 of RFC 2181 points out that pointing an MX RR at a hostname > which is actually a CNAME RR is invalid, and such hosts are also listed." > > <snip> > > Greetings > Stefan > Fair enough. It is still extraordinarily common.
It's also not actually the point of the OP's restrictions, but it was a part of his example. (Also, I have to point out just because it's a RFC violation and RFCI chooses to list it does not make it useful in spam filtering. RFCI is interesting data, but it's also extremely FP prone nowdays)
