To: John Gardiner Myers <jgm@CMU.EDU>
Cc: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: CNAME/1123 breakage 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Oct 1996 14:01:35 -0400."
             <smMx5zS00WBw0_==M0@andrew.cmu.edu> 
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 04:16:09 +1000
Message-Id: <14630.845403369@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>

    Date:        Tue, 15 Oct 1996 14:01:35 -0400 (EDT)
    From:        John Gardiner Myers <jgm@CMU.EDU>
    Message-ID:  <smMx5zS00WBw0_==M0@andrew.cmu.edu>

    I am not, however, yet convinced that the presumed breakage is that
    serious.

I agree (I don't think it is a serious issue at all, if it is
ever an issue for someone, they can easily replace the CNAME with
other DNS data that will work).

But I am replying to this message only because of ...
    
    Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au> writes:
    > But this only
    > applies to A records, if the name in the MX is a CNAME, then no A
    > record is returned, [...]
    
    This is an entirely separate issue.  We were talking about CNAME's in
    RCPT commands, not CNAMEs in MX records.  RFC 974 recommends against
    or prohibits this latter practice.  (It's not clear to me which)

I know, and I thought I said that (explicitly) in the message, I
was just responding to someone else who made some comment about doing
that as if it was a somehow related issue.

kre