On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Jonathan Larmour wrote: > I'm a bit bemused by what's been going on... firstly why isn't the above a > CNAME? And secondly why weren't the TTLs reduced as is normal practice for A mail domain shouldn't be a CNAME. See e.g. <http://cr.yp.to/im/cname.html>. -- Joseph S. Myers jsm@polyomino.org.uk