Virtual Hosts don't work with "www"

Kevin Darcy kcd at
Tue Feb 20 01:29:28 UTC 2007

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 12:43:02AM +0100,
>  Jarek Buczy?ski <jaro80 at> wrote 
>  a message of 48 lines which said:
>> www     CNAME   @
> While I cannot be positive that your problem comes from here, I can
> say that this is a bad idea. It makes "www" identical to the domain,
> for every practical purpose (SRV, MX, etc)
So what? If someone is doing an SRV or MX query for, 
chances are that what they _really_ meant is, so why make it 
more difficult than necessary for them?

Granted, if one *must* differentiate between and on an Rtype-by-Rtype basis, then CNAME is not an option. 
But in my experience that tends to be the exception rather than the 
rule. Using CNAME means you have one less A record to update if you 
re-address your server. It also means there is zero ambiguity with 
respect to forward/reverse record consistency. So from a manageability 
perspective, CNAME is preferred.

- Kevin

More information about the bind-users mailing list