On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Petr Novotny wrote:
> > > Pointing to CNAMEs is close to forbidden.
> > ok, I can't resist:
> > "WHY" ?
> 1. Because the law (RFC) says so.
but why was the "law" put in place? perhaps...
> 2. You also want some logic? Because you'd have to start over
> again resolving the CNAME chain. There were fears of efficiency.
AH! Someone once thought it might not be as efficient.
Which is used more (ie: higher traffic?) -- email or web? No, in
general... not that it really matters, but lets just say web is a
"whole heck of a lot more" on popular sites. What is that site uses
cnames for www.domain? Why is this not against the law, but
doing the same for email -- is?
> I still don't understand why #1 is not enough for you. Are you in
> position to change the RFCs? If yes, please do. If not, well...
I'm just questioning the validity of rabid insistance on this statement.
It's only impossible until it's not.
Certain types of laws can be changed.
Lets approach it another way... just like the "perfect" documentation
for qmail -- if something is so common -- yet the "law" controlling it
is seemingly so obscure to locate and is constantly being trampled and
may not even truly be relevant -- what seems like the more beneficial
approach: (1) change/ignore the law or (2) continue to try to get the
seemingly ever increasing major of law breakers to see the err of their
ways and rehabilitate and repent?
Quick Qmail Quiz!!!!
HOW MANY MAILERS FAIL TO USE CNAMES AS MX TARGETS?! Lets everyone
name all of them!
Quick Qmail Quiz (for those who passed the first one):
HOW MANY MAILERS REFUSE TO ACCEPT BARE CARRIAGE RETURNS?
Actually, I'm honestly interested in learning the answer to those two
questions -- without RTFMing all day, without reading FAQs all day and
without INSTALLING and TRYING each mailer out there.
Scott
