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

Al Stu wrote: >BIND 9.6 ‘named’ throws the following message during startup claiming >that it is illegal to use a CNAME/alias in the MX record. >I beg to differ. There is no such standard nor requirement prohibiting >the use of CNAME/alias in an MX record. > >Some people seem to think RFC 974 crea

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

Al: If you read RFC 2181 section 10.3, RFC 1034 section 3.6, RFC 1912 (page 6), the average person would understand that it's strongly discouraged. Perhaps "illegal" is too strong a word, but the weight of the RFCs and best practices appears to disagree with your assessment that "there is no s

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

BIND 9.6 'named' throws the following message during startup claiming that it is illegal to use a CNAME/alias in the MX record. I beg to differ. There is no such standard nor requirement prohibiting the use of CNAME/alias in an MX record. Message thrown at startup: "named[3307]: zone MyDom

Re: reverse lookup to CNAME

> In article , > John Bond wrote: > > My idea was to create records like the following > > > > zone for .local > > > > bob-www-sol-l01 IN A 1.1.1.1 > > metisIN CNAME bob-www-sol-l01 > > > > zone for 1.1.1 > > > > 1 I