CNAME records having MX
Barry Margolin
barmar at genuity.net
Sat Dec 15 00:00:23 UTC 2001
In article <9ve1jl$n2c at pub3.rc.vix.com>,
Joseph S D Yao <jsdy at center.osis.gov> wrote:
>
>On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 03:07:38PM -0800, Derek Balling wrote:
>> On 12/14/01 2:58 PM, "Joseph S D Yao" <jsdy at center.osis.gov> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 09:54:08PM +0000, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>> >> Michele Chubirka <chubirka at gwu.edu> writes:
>> >>> Is it true that a CNAME record can't have an MX record associated with it?
>> >>> Am I remembering this correctly?
>> >>
>> >> A CNAME can point to an MX, that is fine.
>> >
>> > nope.
>>
>> Yes, it can. This is perfectly fine:
>>
>> foo IN MX 0 mail
>> mail IN A 192.168.1.10
>> bar IN CNAME mail
>>
>> That's perfectly fine.
>
>Well, that is a VERY loose interpretation of "associated with it", and
Who said it was? That's an example of "CNAME can point to an MX".
>has NOTHING to do with what I answered above.
Your "nope" was in response to the "CNAME can point to an MX" message, not
the "associated with it" message.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar at genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
More information about the bind-users
mailing list