Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!GIPSI.GIPSI.FR!philipp
From: oberman@rogue.llnl.gov (Oberman, Kevin)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: MX Records
Message-ID: <53245@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 21 Mar 90 12:23:43 GMT
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: oberman@rogue.llnl.gov
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory-Engineering
Lines: 21

In article <9003151416.AA13535@Gipsi.Gipsi.Fr>, philipp@GIPSI.GIPSI.FR (Philippe Prindeville) writes...
>Is it time yet to decree that A records should not be used in
>lieu of the MX records when delivering mail?  It would seem
>that the "transition" period is well commenced, and it is
>time to cut-over...

What exactly do you mean by "in lieu of MX records"? RFC-1123 does not talk
about any transition period. It only describes the sequence of DNS queries and
how they should be responded to. Certainly any mailer should make use of MX
records. But I have never seen any suggestion that some magic "transition" will
ever take place when A records will simply be ignored.

Or am I mis-understanding the point?

					R. Kevin Oberman
					Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
					Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov
   					(415) 422-6955

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.