I'm missing the message where Scott said to ignore the RFC. He may have
several times said the RFC was irrelevant, or hinted at that, but never said
(to my reading) that it should be ignored. In fact, I understood him to be
saying it should be changed.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> here's my summary of this issue that scott has been preseverating on for
> the past year and a half or so:
>
> -the RFC says MX records can't point to CNAMEs
> -scott thinks that is silly and doesn't understand why it should be
> -others point out that this was originally due to fears of efficiency
> (multiple lookups for the same record).
> -scott says: 'oh yeah? it's not that inefficient and so are other things
> anyway'.
> -others say: then change the RFC to be compliant
> -scott says that we should ignore rfcs rather than update them.
> -people generally stop taking scott seriously.
>
> i've heard this conversation several times on the list so far and it
> always goes like this. am i missing the ways in which this is a productive
> conversation for anyone?
>
> todd
>
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Scott D. Yelich wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Todd Underwood
> Chief Technology Officer
> Oso Grande Technologies, Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
