Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA00879; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 15:00:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.10); Sat, 20 Jun 1998 14:55:55 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA00668; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 14:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu (koobera.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.247]) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA00656; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 14:55:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 21652 invoked by uid 666); 20 Jun 1998 18:56:09 -0000 Date: 20 Jun 1998 18:56:09 -0000 Message-ID: <19980620185609.21650.qmail@cr.yp.to> Mail-Followup-To: drums@cs.utk.edu From: "D. J. Bernstein" To: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: numeric MX records References: <19980614233736.3313.qmail@cr.yp.to> <19980618094952.29110.qmail@cr.yp.to> <21976.898166590@munnari.OZ.AU> <19980618120927.236.qmail@cr.yp.to> <28117.898223223@munnari.OZ.AU> <6wCSTNlXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> Kai Henningsen writes: > Does *anybody* except Dan think we should have numeric MXes? New implementors need to know that we _do_ have numeric MX records. It continues to amaze me that anyone would object to telling the truth. ---Dan 50000 new aliases in 6 seconds. http://pobox.com/~djb/fastforward.html