[Mailman-Users] To: is being rewritten by some mail agents

Scott Chapman scott_list at mischko.com
Thu Jul 13 19:21:05 CEST 2006

Brad Knowles wrote:
> The receiving server is doing address canonicalization, as required by 
> the RFCs.  The fact that your server is not doing the address 
> canonicalization is a serious bug, and should be fixed.
>>  Any thing I can do to fix this?
> The real solution is not to use CNAMEs at all in your DNS, but instead 
> to have the hostnames resolve directly into the appropriate IP 
> addresses, and to make sure that the reverse DNS for that IP address 
> includes all the appropriate hostnames.

How does one implement the real solution when the DNS records that are being 
virtual hosted are from different registrars? Since I only have one IP 
address, the reverse DNS would have to be handled by the outfit I'm hosting 
from, right?  I didn't know you could even have more than one name come up in 
a reverse DNS lookup.  I thought it was always supposed to be the canonical 
name only (if I'm using that term correctly).

I also wonder why the RFC's require address canonicalization in email like 
that.  That seems a holdover from a bygone era.  The reason I have all the 
CNAME's is so that I can move to a different IP address and have to change the 
DNS record in only one place.  I don't mind getting rid of the CNAME's but 
getting the reverse DNS all configured correctly will be interesting.


More information about the Mailman-Users mailing list