fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article]

Owen DeLong owen at
Fri Jan 14 06:30:22 UTC 2005

That's bad sincd DNAME is deprecated and has been removed from BIND.


--On Friday, January 14, 2005 10:05 +1100 Mark Andrews 
<Mark_Andrews at> wrote:

>> What is wrong with MTAMARK?
> 	As currently described it doesn't fit well with RFC 2317
> 	style delegations.  They would need to be converted to use
> 	DNAME instead of CNAME which requires all the delegating
> 	servers to be upgraded to support DNAME.
> 	There are other issues but hear is not the correct place
> 	to debate them.

If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the NANOG mailing list