CNAME records having MX

[McNutt, Justin M.]

> >Well, that is a VERY loose interpretation of "associated 
> with it", and
> 
> Who said it was?  That's an example of "CNAME can point to an MX".
> 
> >has NOTHING to do with what I answered above.
> 
> Your "nope" was in response to the "CNAME can point to an MX" 
> message, not
> the "associated with it" message.

All right, now.  You're getting upset about the proper use of prepositions
now.  Whether a CNAME "points to" or "points at" or "points from" is a
useless argument.  Technically, *none* of those are correct, since that is
not the verbage used in the RFC.  I think we can agree that this is correct:

foo.bar.com. IN A     192.168.1.0
baz.bar.com. IN CNAME foo.bar.com.
bar.com.     IN MX 0  foo.bar.com.

and this is incorrect:

foo.bar.com. IN A     192.168.1.0
baz.bar.com. IN CNAME foo.bar.com.
bar.com.     IN MX 0  baz.bar.com.

While BIND 4 and BIND 8 allow you to do the second one (sort of), the first
is the correct one.

Actually, I accidentally set up the second the other day and our 8.2.3
server disallowed it.  I had to change the CNAME to an A record to fix it.

--J