Message-Id: <199610142258.SAA05744@CS.UTK.EDU>
Date:        Tue, 15 Oct 1996 00:37:06 +0200
From: Eric Thomas <ERIC@VM.SE.LSOFT.COM>
Subject:     Re: CNAME/1123 breakage
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 14 Oct 1996 13:10:33 -0700 (PDT) from Mark Crispin
             <mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM>

I don't understand. What EXACTLY is going to break if we require all SMTP
servers  to handle  a RCPT  TO: that  contains a  CNAME, which  all major
implementations  are  already  doing  today?   I  can  certainly  see  an
improvement  in robustness  with this  requirement, and  a problem  if we
don't require  it. Basically I'm  fed up  with this discussion,  which is
going nowhere  due to many of  the participants being more  interested in
looking at history  books and pontificating about what they  think is the
One  And Only  Valid Use  of  CNAME than  in actually  solving real  life
problems. This  group is a waste  of my time  and I'm just going  to sign
off. Wake me up when Gates has taken over the IETF and there is some hope
for discussions centered on problem-solving  in the real world. Meanwhile
I have some productive work that needs to be done. Bye.

  Eric