From: Ned Freed [mailto:ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 5:25 PM
To: Trevor Paquette
Subject: RE: Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821
As for updating the specification, I have no problem with adding a
statement that the result of an MX lookup
MUST NOT be a CNAME if there is consensus to do so. I strongly object,
however, to adding statements along
the lines of "this document doesn't update this other RFC". That's a
path to madness.
I really like this idea. This will solve the problem of
misinterpretation of the RFC.