On 4/05/2004, at 11:10 PM, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Cars have two registration plates, one on the front, and one on the back. The police stop you if either is missing.
So these setups would be illegal:
i) MX 10 mail.example.com. ...because there's no license plate on the back?
ii) MX 10 mail.example.com. MX 20 mail2.example.com. MX 30 mail3.example.com. ...because there's an extra license plate on the roof?
iii) MX 10 mail.example.com. MX 20 nil.example.com. ; points to unreachable IP address ...because one of the servers isn't reachable?
...and the Courier Police would have to stop me?
Please stop these b0rken analogies, this is ridiculous.
It was an _ANALOGY_, it cannot be literally applied to the MX situation.
The point is the standard is the standard
Yeah, that's what some people here keep telling us. But what is the
actual harm in handling broken MX records in a tolerant way? Nobody has
yet answered that question.
Because Courier's author has decided not to.
and if nobody enforces it all hell breaks loose.
You mean, hell breaks loose in about the same way as when some people have
one of their MX records point to an unreachable A record?
Yeah, they don't get their mail.
I still see no valid reason to put an ip address as an MX.
I don't, either. But I *do* see a valid reasong not to abort the whole
delivery process just because one MX record is broken in some special way.
Then patch it. -- Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sitharus.com/
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
_______________________________________________
courier-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
