North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Compu$erve RFC 1123 5.3.3 violation

  • From: Alan Barrett
  • Date: Sun Nov 17 05:04:40 1996

Paul A Vixie <[email protected]> said:
> This:
> NOT a variance from RFC1123 or any other specification.

That's true (as far as it goes), and I certainly don't see that bouncing
mail with a "mailbox is full" error is a violation of RFC1123 section

But the following piece of evidence was not mentioned before:           MX    10

That MX, in conjunction with the CNAME (which was mentioned before):  CNAME

adds up to a violation of RFC 1034 section 3.6.2:

        "Domain names in RRs which point at another name should always
        point at the primary name and not the alias."

(which esentially means "If a name appears on the left hand side of a
CNAME record then that name should not also appear on the right hand side
of any other record"). 

> It is
> completely appropriate for a mail domain to be a CNAME pointing at a
> handful of A's.  It's not ok to _advertise_ one of these, as for example
> in an exported "From:" header,

I am not sure that my reading of RFC 1123 section 5.2.2 awould support
you there.  But anyway, the "" domain *does* get advertised
in "From:" headers, so there is clearly a problem.

--apb (Alan Barrett)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -