Ray Bellis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> AIUI, various protocols have at times required that when a CNAME record
> is encountered that the target of that record (the "canonical name") be
> the one subsequently used in protocol exchanges. [e.g. the apparently
> obsolete text in ยง5.2.2 of RFC 1123].
Are there any examples of that other than SMTP? In my experience it was a
terrible idea, but then I'm not a fan of rewriting message headers. It's
also seriously problematic from the authentication point of view
especially in the absence of DNSSEC.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <[email protected]> http://dotat.at/
Shannon: West or northwest 5 or 6. Rough. Rain or showers. Moderate or good.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
