> Quoth Bob Cox at 2009-03-18 18:39... > ... > >The question is whether you should be rejecting email from any user > >@act.gov.au just because act.gov.au does not resolve.
On 18.03.09 19:31, Matthew Smith wrote: > Tempting though it is, rejecting mail on the basis of RFC-non compliance > is NOT a good move. E-mail is borked beyond redemption so, until we > are redeemed by the secure, efficient, replacement for SMTP, we need to > be tolerant of such things as MX records not having corresponding A > records - even though it makes our spam-filtering configuration that > much harder. If a domain doesn't resolve, it's not available for e-mailing, thus it should not be used in mail addresses (you can't mail there, you can't bounce there...). Rejecting mail from non-existing domains has been good and very often used anti-spam practive for YEARS, why do you oppose now? However, the error was just temporary, so if destination mail server will found the MX/A, it may accept the mail in the future (until the mail expires). It seemed that act.gov.au should take care of its DNS... -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Due to unexpected conditions Windows 2000 will be released in first quarter of year 1901 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org