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