Hello all, I'm running Courier 0.37.2.20020131 and have a quick question about mail routing. One of my users got a bounce notification from Courier because of an RFC 1035 violation. I checked and, of course, the MX records were mis-configured for the destination domain (one MX record returned an IP instead of a name). I happened to know a guy over at the organization that controls one of the destination domain's nameservers, so I sent him a note about the mis-configuration. He responded:
--- begin friendly nameserver admin quotation --- You're right. RFC-1035, Section 3.3.9 does state that a hostname should be provided as a response to an MX query. On the other hand, your server should, per RFC-974 "remove irrelevant RR's" and then "If the list of MX RRs is not empty, the mailer should try to deliver the message to the MXs in order (lowest preference value tried first)." (Parentheses in original--MEE) Presumably that is what happened, so you would have queued it for some period of time, then bounced if the cost 10 machine never came available. --- end friendly nameserver admin quotation --- Now, the message did not queue, it bounced. Courier said "no-go" and quit because of the RFC 1035 error, even though the *other* MX record (which also happened to be the *higher-priority* or less-expensive MX record) was completely valid (verified via testmxlookup as well as dig). I went ahead and hard-coded a route in esmtproutes. I don't even pretend to be authoritative when it comes to these standards issues, once the discussion moves past an obvious RFC violation. So, with all trepidation, I simply ask: shouldn't Courier trim the RR list as per RFC 974, eliminating irrelevant RRs, and then try to deliver based on what's left after the house cleaning? Or, is my friend "the other hostmaster" off his rocker and should I have bet him $5 on this issue? Thanks, Dan _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
