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

[Scott Haneda]

On Jan 26, 2009, at 10:03 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:

> In article <gllr91$2vqt$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
> Scott Haneda <talklists at newgeo.com> wrote:
>
>> 100% right.  I refuse MX's that are cnamed, and I get emails from
>> customers asking what is up.  What is strange, and I can not figure  
>> it
>> out, is that the admins of the DNS/email server always tell me this  
>> is
>> the first time they have heard of it.
>
> So you're not following the "be liberal in what you accept" half of  
> the
> Interoperability Principle, which is intended specifically to avoid
> problems due to such confusion.


Because that worked so well for HTML :)
I was thinking about that quote just the other day.  To be honest, I  
think it applies well to social issues, but not technical or  
engineering/programming ones.  The second you accept liberally, that  
tells the submitter that it is ok.

I am hard pressed to think of one case in which liberally accepting  
data is a good thing.  It is that very expression that defines why we  
have <b><p><i>sometext<p><b><i>

Just consider the ramifications of parsing that one simple string,  
which is now non trivial to parse.  What is C worked this way?

Just some thoughts I was having the other day.
--
Scott