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

[Matthew Pounsett]

On 25-Jan-2009, at 13:15 , Al Stu wrote:

> Yes, blah was supposed to be srv1.
>
> I do receive both the CNAME and A records for the A mx.xyz.com  
> query.  See attached capture file.
>
> In the capture file three global search and replacements were  
> performed to match the previous example.
>
> 1) domain name was replaced with xyz
> 2) server name was replaced with srv1
> 3) server ip address was replaced with 1.2.3.4
>
> Requirements are met.

Al, I'm sorry, but you're wrong.  If you look closely at what you just  
typed, you'll see that's three steps.. not the two steps required by  
the MUST in the RFC.

Your attachment didn't make it through the list manager.  I suggest  
you paste in some dig output instead.  If you do, you'll notice that  
the IP address you're receiving is in the ADDITIONAL section of the  
DNS message, which does not qualify as an ANSWER.

I'm going to stop contributing to this thread now.. if you insist on  
ignoring the pointers people have given you to the text in the RFCs,  
and insist on reading your own interpretation into it, we cannot stop  
you.


-------------- 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/20090125/f3d2bc10/attachment.bin>