BIND 9.6 Flaw - CNAME vs. A Record in MX Records are NOT "Illegal"

[Matthew Pounsett]

On 31-Jan-2009, at 13:18, Al Stu wrote:

>
> And what business of yours would it be if I did?  That is pretty  
> much the point here.  What business is it of yours, ISC, or anyone  
> else if I chose to run my DNS with MX's pointing to CNAMES?  If it  
> is a "bad" practice, fine so be it.  But it has practical and  
> beneficial uses.  For ISC to deem it "illegal" is a fallacy and  
> inappropriate..

ISC did not deem it illegal.  The IETF working group that designed the  
protocol deemed it illegal.  If you have a problem with it, take it up  
with the DNSEXT working group.

You have been presented with the means to turn off the behaviour.  Use  
that or don't; it's up to you.  Please stop whining about it.

*plonk*

  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20090131/55873f3b/attachment.bin>