On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Lucio Crusca <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> > For example, Lucio's server could have matched the bad MX 20
> > of domain.com, unable to recognize its own IP address because it sits
> > behind a NAT, and unable to recognize its own name since the DNS hid
> > it. If it had used the good MX record by default, it would have
> > violated the SMTP prohibition to relay to a host at the same
> > preference level.
>
> I don't quite get why (and it's crucial I understand it before I tell the
> other domain tech contact it's his fault).
>
> Could you please give me a pointer to relevant RFC about the SMTP
> prohibition
> you cited?
>
Please see the URLs I listed earlier, they are direct references.
If the links do not work for you, google/bing/gogoduck "RFC 5321".
In brief:
1. There is a technical error with at least one of the MX RRs, which are
with equal priority.
2. The MTA attempting delivery must select one at random.
3. If the randomly selected MX RR is invalid, delivery is impossible at
that time.
4. The standard does not absolutely require that the delivering MTA must
make an attempt with the other MX RR of equal priority.
Feel free to refer the other domain tech contact to me if a cluebat is
needed.
--
Jan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
courier-users mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
