Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821

At 3:33 pm -0700 12/12/2007, Trevor Paquette wrote:
> According to RFC 2181, this is invalid. You cannot have an MX record 
> that resolves to a CNAME.
Section 2.4 of RFC 1912 also says "Don't use CNAMEs in combination 
with RRs which point to other names like MX, CNAME, PTR and NS."
> However, in talking to TrendMicro, they say that this syntax is 
> perfectly valid and that RFC 2821 overrides the MX to CNAME 
> limitation.
Nowhere in RFC 2821 does it say that it obsoletes or updates RFC 1034 or 2181.

Glenn.