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

[Al Stu]

"In all the time its taken him to type his rants and raves and have his little dummy spit, he could have gone and changed the MX to be a real name, ..." - Noel Butler
Wow, such narrow mindedness.

"I like most I suspect stopped reading his rants days ago." - Noel Butler
And yet here you are continuing to proliferate the thread.  Thank you!


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Noel Butler 
  To: Danny Thomas 
  Cc: bind-users at lists.isc.org 
  Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 2:23 PM
  Subject: Re: BIND 9.6 Flaw - CNAME vs. A Record in MX Records are NOT "Illegal"


  On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 07:43, Danny Thomas wrote: 
Al Stu wrote:
 > So within the zone SMTP requirements are in fact met when the
 > MX RR is a CNAME.
you might argue the line of it being OK when additional processing
includes an A record.

  In all the time its taken him to type his rants and raves and have his little dummy spit, he could have gone and changed the MX to be a real name, and not bored the rest of us because he cant read modern RFC's.



Possible courses of action
  * disable the check-mx-cname in your config
  As was pointed out to him days ago, but yet he persists in trolling, I like most I suspect stopped reading his rants days ago.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  bind-users mailing list
  bind-users at lists.isc.org
  https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20090126/2e94374e/attachment.html>