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

So if I understand you correctly, you meant to say: «All current/modernDNS clients will support the resolution of a CNAME as part of a MXexpansion process, when "current and modern" is defined to take thisissue into account.»


That's just a tautology wrapped in some suggestive wording.

Arnt

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
RE: Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, (continued) RE: Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, ned+ietf-smtp RE: Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, Trevor Paquette Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, Hector Santos Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, Derek J. Balling Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, ned+ietf-smtp Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, Glenn Anderson Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, Alex van den Bogaerdt Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, Hector Santos Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, Paul Smith Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, Hector Santos Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, Arnt Gulbrandsen <= Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, Hector Santos Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, Paul Smith Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, Hector Santos Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, Frank Ellermann Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, Douglas Otis Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, Derek J. Balling Re: MX to CNAME and (mis)interptretation of 2821, Douglas Otis