Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA19402; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 14:52:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Thu, 11 Mar 1999 14:17:16 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA17754; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 14:17:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from slarti.muc.de (slarti.muc.de [193.149.48.10]) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA17702; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 14:16:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 24089 invoked by uid 66); 11 Mar 1999 19:16:17 -0000 Received: from faerber by slarti with UUCP; Thu Mar 11 19:16:17 1999 -0000 Received: by faerber.muc.de 11 Mar 1999 20:13:30 +0100 Date: 11 Mar 1999 19:44:00 +0100 From: mail-std-list@faerber.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_Andr=E9_F=E4rber?=) To: drums@cs.utk.edu Message-ID: <7Ce8csOocDB@faerber.muc.de> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: FWD: Re: To MX or not to MX? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit List-Unsubscribe: John C Klensin schrieb/wrote: > "These first-hop relays are all a matter of private > agreements which may not be conforming" really is my > preferred way to handle this mess. This solution is sensible. But then the standard must not suggest other behaviour. It is worth nothing if the standard says: "do MX lookups" when this is always overridden by private agreements. -- Claus Andre Faerber PGP: ID=1024/527CADCD FP=12 20 49 F3 E1 04 9E 9E 25 56 69 A5 C6 A0 C9 DC