cname quick question
brad.knowles at skynet.be
Wed Mar 7 23:04:28 UTC 2001
At 3:38 PM -0700 3/7/01, Cricket Liu wrote:
> If you added:
> www.starwarsepisode2.com. IN CNAME starwarsepisode2.lucasfilm.com.
> then wouldn't you just add the MX records to starwarsepisode2.lucasfilm.com?
Right, that works fine for movies. But if we have
"old-domain-that-has-worked-for-ten-years.com" and we now alias this
to "brand-new-domain-that-no-one-has-ever-heard-of-before.com", do we
really want to break all mail that would be sent to
"user at old-domain-that-has-worked-for-ten-years.com"?
No, I submit that the CNAME technique could be fine to reduce the
number of unnecessary zones (e.g., the case of domains being
registered for new movies at they come out), but it does not solve
the general problem.
IMO, if this matter has been discussed for this long on this
mailing list, I'm convinced that if the feature is available at all,
then people will try to abuse it for things it simply cannot do
(according to the DNS protocol as it now exists).
The result is you either get frustrated users who can't use
aliases for what they want, when they clearly see that the feature is
available but don't understand why it can't be used for the kind of
service they want, or you get more and more garbage being put in the
Your choice, but I think that both are bad ideas.
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles at skynet.be>
More information about the bind-users