Validator strange behaviour/bug?

[Jonas Wielicki]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi,

On 14.01.2015 13:02, Leon Weber wrote:
> First of all, thanks for the DANE validator, it’s a very useful
> too!

I can only second that!

> One thing I’ve noticed:  I have a domain with two MX records, one
> of which is missing a TLSA record.  That’s obviously a
> misconfiguration, and the validator points that out correctly,
> however, it seems to ignore the second MX record:

For anyone reading this post-fact and being confused, I fixed the
missing record.

regards,
jwi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=ZOOs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----