Re: DNS goofups galore...

From: Johannes Erdfelt (
Date: Thu Feb 08 2001 - 19:43:33 EST

On Thu, Feb 08, 2001, Michael H. Warfield <> wrote:
> But, wait a minute. CNAME -> CNAME is a "must not". MX -> CNAME
> is a "should not". The "should not" leaves it to be implimentation
> dependent and not an outright ban. Sooo...

Actually, I had this conversation recently. I checked a variety of
places and I couldn't find an RFC that said CNAME -> CNAME is a "must
not". In fact I found this snippet in rfc1912 which seems to imply that
it is legal:

   Also, having chained records such as CNAMEs pointing to CNAMEs may
   make administration issues easier, but is known to tickle bugs in
   some resolvers that fail to check loops correctly. As a result some
   hosts may not be able to resolve such names.



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 21:00:13 EST