Subject: Re: a.dns.int

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 19:47:52 -0800

i think the protocol specs are pretty clear on what is legal in the rhs of
an mx rr.

in almost twenty thousand zones secondaried here from all over the world,
i can not find an mx rr with a dotted quad on the rhs.

can we focus on real issues of substance as opposed to my server is better
than yours?  thanks.

randy

to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.

---

From: "Michael H. Warfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:44:00 -0500

> i think the protocol specs are pretty clear on what is legal in the rhs of

	Matter of interpretation.  Unfortunately, not always OUR
interpretation.  Many people (and, contrary to popular belief, admins
do qualify as people) think that because dotted quads can be used in
URL's and ftp addresses that they qualify as "host specifiers".  That
means (in their minds) that they feel that they can use them wherever
they see a requirment for a host specifier.  That means, to them, MX
records.

> i can not find an mx rr with a dotted quad on the rhs.

	Ok...  Couple that I've got (zone files not under my immediate
control)...

	dotplanet.com
	tewna.com
	wht.net
	wma-online.com

	Tip of the iceberg (just primary zone files at my DNS server).
Ok...  So that's only a couple of percent of what my servers deal with.
I could dig deeper at a couple of other sites that I don't host the
primary zone file for...  

> can we focus on real issues of substance as opposed to my server is better

	Who gives a rats $#@$#@ about whose server is better than whose
server.  It's out there and it's gonna happen.  Not better, not worse.
Fact of life.  Deal.

> randy

	Mike
-- 
 Michael H. Warfield    |  (770) 985-6132   |  [email-masked]
  (The Mad Wizard)      |  (770) 331-2437   |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
  NIC whois:  MHW9      |  An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471    |  possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:23:05 +0000

>>>>> "Michael" == Michael H Warfield <[email-masked]> writes:

    >> i think the protocol specs are pretty clear on what is legal in
    >> the rhs of an mx rr.

    Michael> 	Matter of interpretation.  Unfortunately, not always
    Michael> OUR interpretation.  Many people (and, contrary to
    Michael> popular belief, admins do qualify as people) think that
    Michael> because dotted quads can be used in URL's and ftp
    Michael> addresses that they qualify as "host specifiers".  That
    Michael> means (in their minds) that they feel that they can use
    Michael> them wherever they see a requirment for a host specifier.
    Michael> That means, to them, MX records.

Well, these people are simply wrong. RFC1034 is crystal-clear on this.
I quote:

	MX	a 16 bit preference value (lower is better)
		followed by a host name willing to act as a
		mail exchange for the owner domain.

Dotted quads are not host names, as RFC1123 makes clear.

Now if people choose to misinterpret something as fundamental as the
mandatory Host Requirements RFC, then that's their problem. Just
because someone believes Elvis is alive doesn't make that belief
true. And if you think these RFCs are ambiguous or lack clarity, I'm
sure the IETF would be delighted if you suggested an improved wording.