Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA22614; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 14:09:00 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 14:08:59 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from po6.andrew.cmu.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA22607; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 14:08:58 -0400 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po6.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA11893 for drums@CS.UTK.EDU; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 14:08:53 -0400 Received: via switchmail; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 14:08:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 14:08:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 14:08:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from BatMail.robin.v2.14.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c.411 via MS.5.6.hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c_411; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 14:08:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 14:08:20 -0400 (EDT) From: John Gardiner Myers To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: handling literals In-Reply-To: <9506061801.AA00617@snark.imsi.com> References: <9506061801.AA00617@snark.imsi.com> Beak: Is "Perry E. Metzger" writes: > The reason people > like me fight for domain literals in the first place is so that we can > function in environments where there are weird holes in the > DNS. Needing an intact DNS to resolve the literals obviates all the > benefit. If things are properly specified, the hack can be done in the DNS client--that's the highest appropriate layer. Any client-side hack would effectively prevent MX records on such literals. Having to do the hack for each relevant applications protocol is a bad idea. -- _.John G. Myers Internet: jgm+@CMU.EDU LoseNet: ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up