I'm not gonna look it up - you can if you want - but RFC1123/1124 (Requirements for Internet Hosts), which may or may not have been superseded since their release -- say that if you have a domain on the internet, you are required to accept postmaster/hostmaster/abuse/some set of email addresses for that domain.
I agree that the RFCs should be updated such that the address in the SOA record should be allowed to supersede that, and something should allow you to say "no email to this domain". -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David, Andy Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 2:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: undeliverable domain (thread hijack) Change the mx record to mail01.superioraccess.com. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schwartz, Jim Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 1:57 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: undeliverable domain (thread hijack) Which I find kind of annoying lately. I've asked this question elsewhere, but I'll ask it here as well. What do you do for domains that you want to maintain a web presence for, but don't want to ever send or receive e-mail for? I have several legacy domains from various mergers that the web folks want to maintain for a while. For some of these domains, I have an MX record that gets a lot of e-mail (60k+ per day) and only 77 users with that domain for a secondary SMTP address. If I remove the MX record, it defaults to my A record which is a firewall for the web servers. No connection is made and the client (remote host) gets a 4.x.x message and attempts to retry. I would love to be able to return a code in DNS that a mailer would understand to mean "don't send any e-mail here". If I give the MX record an associated A record of 127.0.0.1 it works from a functionality standpoint, but the "purists" get upset since it is not a valid IP address. It was suggested to me to create an MX record of: foo.com MX preference = 0, mail exchanger = . This would cause most mailers (I would think) to fail the message, but some overzealous mailers (within the spirit of the RFC) would default to the A record since it couldn't find a valid MX. I could also set up my mailer to reject for all the domains that I don't want to receive e-mail for anymore, yet I find this to be a waste of resources for all concerned. If were to do this for all the domains I want to eliminate mail capabilities for, I would be getting 200-300k connections per day, just to reject them. Does anyone have any better ideas, or is this one of those things that I should just bring up to the RFC writers as something that needs to be addressed in the future? -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 11:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: undeliverable domain It is a MUST as the lookup succeeds. Also from RFC2821: When the lookup succeeds, the mapping can result in a list of alternative delivery addresses rather than a single address, because of multiple MX records, multihoming, or both. To provide reliable mail transmission, the SMTP client MUST be able to try (and retry) each of the relevant addresses in this list in order, until a delivery attempt succeeds. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > David, Andy Posted At: Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:26 AM Posted To: > swynk > Conversation: undeliverable domain > Subject: RE: undeliverable domain > > > I think we can all agree that having a mx record is a GoodThing and > having a mailer that will fall back to an A record is a GoodThing as > well if it cant find a mx. > Note that Symantec will also not deliver if it finds a CNAME. > As far as I can tell however the "implicit MX" rule is not a MUST > either. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Michael B. > Smith > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 11:08 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: undeliverable domain > > OK, Chris pulled out the OLD RFC so I thought to pull out the current > one. > :-) > > RFC 2821, section 5: > > 5. Address Resolution and Mail Handling > > Once an SMTP client lexically identifies a domain to which mail > will > be delivered for processing (as described in sections 3.6 and 3.7), > a > DNS lookup MUST be performed to resolve the domain name [22]. The > names are expected to be fully-qualified domain names (FQDNs): > mechanisms for inferring FQDNs from partial names or local aliases > are outside of this specification and, due to a history of > problems, > are generally discouraged. The lookup first attempts to locate an > MX > record associated with the name. "implicit MX" If > no MX records are found, but an A RR is found, the A RR is treated > as > if it was associated with an implicit MX RR, with a preference of > 0, > pointing to that host. If one or more MX RRs are found for a given > name, SMTP systems MUST NOT utilize any A RRs associated with that > name unless they are located using the MX RRs; the "implicit MX" > rule > above applies only if there are no MX records present. If MX > records > are present, but none of them are usable, this situation MUST be > reported as an error. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Michael B. Smith > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 11:01 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: undeliverable domain > > That's not the RFC rule. > > The RFC requires attempted delivery to the "A" record if no "MX" > records exist. > > I didn't look it up, but I sure could. It's in either RFC > 2821 or RFC 2822. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Martin Blackstone > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 10:49 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: undeliverable domain > > That must be the party line excuse because I hear that as well. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Jonathan Beeler > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 7:27 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: undeliverable domain > > It's safe to say that the product sucks. My company got it in the > Symantec enterprise "Suite", effectively for free. > > I'm trying to convince them to use a linux mail host running sendmail > - as I've been doing for the last while - but to no avail. > > Symantec's line is that they go by strict RFC rules - my reply, was > that's fine, but what about the real world rules? > > Anyway, thanks for the input. > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=exchange > To subscribe: http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: > Jupitermedia Corp. > Attn: Discussion List Management > 475 Park Avenue South > New York, NY 10016 > > Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=exchange > To subscribe: http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: > Jupitermedia Corp. > Attn: Discussion List Management > 475 Park Avenue South > New York, NY 10016 > > Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=exchange > To subscribe: http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: > Jupitermedia Corp. > Attn: Discussion List Management > 475 Park Avenue South > New York, NY 10016 > > Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=exchange > To subscribe: http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: > Jupitermedia Corp. > Attn: Discussion List Management > 475 Park Avenue South > New York, NY 10016 > > Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=exchange > To subscribe: http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: > Jupitermedia Corp. > Attn: Discussion List Management > 475 Park Avenue South > New York, NY 10016 > > Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. > > > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=exchange To subscribe: http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=exchange To subscribe: http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=exchange To subscribe: http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/read/?forum=exchange To subscribe: http://e-newsletters.internet.com/discussionlists.html/ To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
