Tx you all !
Gordon Messmer wrote: > FM wrote: >> I ha to temporarily disable this option because of bad DNS config from >> one of our clients. >> Now the client argue that this setting is not in any RFC so it does not >> want to fix the MX - PTR issue ! >> Is there a RFC or a good document that I can you to prove my point :) >> > > http://www.courier-mta.org/FAQ.html#esmtperr > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1035.txt > > Section 3.3.9 defines the "exchange" value as a <domain-name>. It > defines <domain-name> as a series of labels, and not as IP addresses. > The RFC notes that MX records cause type A additional processing, and > does not specify that type CNAME additional processing is allowed. > > RFC 974 may further recommend that aliases are never used in the data > section of MX RRs. > > In the end, though, your client's attitude won't get mail delivered. > Using names that resolve to A records will. One of those things is > useful. Tell him to suck it up and cooperate a little. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > courier-users mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
