[dns-operations] DNAME implementation consistency?
dot at dotat.at
Thu Mar 22 14:28:50 UTC 2018
Chris Thompson <cet1 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Mar 20 2018, Tony Finch wrote:
> > Right, but only for the reverse DNS - see the link below. I'm not aware of
> > any problems, but because reverse DNS is not absolutely necessary, me / my
> > users would not be likely to notice problems...
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00.html#section-8
> I am surprised that Tony doesn't remember the problem we had with e-mail
> being emitted from an IP address with reverse lookup involving a DNAME.
Er, yes, I should have remembered that! The advantage of having done
a brain dump into that draft is I can refer to section 10.3 :-)
f.anthony.n.finch <dot at dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ - I xn--zr8h punycode
Shannon: South veering west, 5 to 7, increasing gale 8 or severe gale 9 for a
time. Rough or very rough, occasionally high for a time. Squally showers.
Moderate or poor.
More information about the dns-operations