[Users] ENUM behaviour issue

[Klaus Darilion]

Juha Heinanen wrote:
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
> 
>  > not without development, but I would love to have these options. Never 
>  > took a deep look at enum module, but adding AVPs is not at all a big 
>  > deal. I will try to make a patch, if no one else volunteers.
> 
> if you do these kind of modifications, please don't do it at the expense
> of performance of current, standards compliant operation of the module.

Can you point me to the standard which says: multiple records = parallel 
forking?

> 
> just for curiosity, can you override the behavior of your email client
> so that it doesn't obey the priority of MX records?  if not, why would
> it be necessary for enum records?

I've never heard about forked emails...

klaus