Proper CNAME interpretation

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <4E7131A6.3000102 at chrysler.com>, 
Kevin Darcy <kcd at chrysler.com> wrote:

>Indeed. It should be noted that not only does the graphiteops.com name 
>break the "CNAME and other" rule, but it's a *self-referential* CNAME 
>(rdata = graphiteops.com), so if one tried to chase it, one could chase 
>infinitely. This is, presumably, what RFC 1034 calls a "CNAME loop"...

Yes, it is MAJORLY snafued alright.  That's what makes it such a good
test case, e.g. for software that does resolution-like thingies.