On 2023-06-12 at 04:19:12 UTC-0400 (Mon, 12 Jun 2023 20:19:12 +1200) Peter via Postfix-users <pe...@pajamian.dhs.org> is rumored to have said:
> Technically it's an invalid MX record because MX records must point to a > hostname, not an IP address. > > They are probably trying (but failing) to implement a null MX record: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7505 Also, it may be an artifact of discussions ~2 decades ago about how best to express the mail-nonexistence of a domain. I am certain I saw it proposed at least twice as a way to make misuse of such a domain noisy and painful. > > > Peter > > > On 12/06/23 19:50, wesley--- via Postfix-users wrote: >>> >>> Note there is also RFC 7505 "Null MX" where you simply add "IN MX 0 ." to >>> any DNS name you wish not to send or accept e-mail. (this is designed to >>> work around implicie MX records when A record is present). >>> >>>> >> >> I saw some domains have MX pointing to 127.0.0.1. what does this mean? >> >> Thanks. >> _______________________________________________ >> Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org > _______________________________________________ > Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org > To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org -- Bill Cole b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses) Not Currently Available For Hire _______________________________________________ Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
