dhill at cricalix.net
Sat Mar 24 01:24:36 UTC 2001
On 2001-03-23, Kevin Darcy did say,
> The question is too simplistic. CNAMEs are not "deprecated", but
> BIND now more rigorously enforces the "CNAME and other data" rule
> that has existed since RFC 1034. This means that in certain
> instances what you may have been able to (illegally) accomplish in
> the past with CNAMEs you now have to effect with A records
> instead. This is not "deprecation"; it's overdue enforcement.
Ahh.. my only use so far has been where a machine has a DNS entry that
matches its unix name (say einstein.pct.edu), but also needs to be
known by other names - www and lists.
The only problem that has been so far, and is proving to be again, is
that lists under majordomo 1.94 get sent as the real host, and when
using a linux box and pine to send mail to a cname'd host, the
delivery is instead attempted to the real machine name. I suppose an
IN A and/or IN MX record might fix that. Should dig out my bind book
and try to work this out.
> first PTR in an RRset, so it seems a bit of a waste to add any
> beyond that...
My mind not only wanders, it sometimes leaves completely.
More information about the bind-users