Re: [cobalt-users] excessive recursion

[baltimoremd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, H.P. Stroebel wrote:

> baltimoremd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx schrieb:
> 
> > All the problems with the catch-all, procmail, etc. were solved.  Details
> > are in
> 
> I have no catch-all etc. In my case the problem was definitely the
> rewriting rule from domain.tld to www.domain.tld which was a CNAME
> instead of an A record.

I never had a cname...but at one point I had the same problem...along with
the catchall.  
> 
> I cannot imagine the sense of this rewriting rule, though. Any
> explanations ?

Not that I have been using the RAQ for that long, but I am beginning to
believe that my perception of what makes sense and what makes Cobalt-Sense
are two different things.

The Cobalt folks have a very interesting mindset...they figure out what we
"shouldn't do"(control the system), how standard things (terrible
implimentation of majordomo as an example) are to work in the Cobalt
world,  and those of us who know better/different are plagued with 
"I cannot imagine the sense of this."

IMHO, if they'd clean up their implimentation, everyone would
benefit...but then they might have a harder time selling the very
expensive training materials.

thom
././././././././././././././././././././././././././././././././././././././
baltimoremd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx             Thom LaCosta K3HRN Webmaster  
                      
http://www.baltimoremd.com/             Baltimore's Home Page 
http://www.baltimorehon.com/            Home of the Baltimore Lexicon
http://www.zerobeat.net                 Home of The QRP Web Ring
                                        and Drake Mail List Pages