Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
So if I understand you correctly, you meant to say: «All current/modern
DNS clients will support the resolution of a CNAME as part of a MX
expansion process, when "current and modern" is defined to take this
issue into account.»
That's just a tautology wrapped in some suggestive wording.
(Gawd, this is so silly.)
I guess that depends on how you view or define "Current and Modern."
But I see your point. Lets explore:
"Current/modern DNS clients support the resolution of
a CNAME as part of a MX expansion process."
Some make logical argue this is also a taulogy as one may argue, a
Current/Modern takes all these issues into account and there is nothing
Of course, there is implied semantic "Current/Modern" is akin to "Best
Current Practice", but I'm sure people will argue that as well.
It is also true to exist current and modern DNS clients which neglect to
take issue into account, but one might arguable debate they are not
current and modern or following best practice or expected practice.
We can also explore:
"Most ..." Safe in this list (A lie to me)
"Most, if not all," Safe, acceptable even if wrong
"Some...." Would be more wrong than correct
"Industry Ready" I like it!
I change my statement:
"Industry ready DNS clients support the resolution of a
CNAME as part of a MX expansion process."
Another else, IMO, is mal-practice. <g>
Can we move on?
Hector Santos, CTO