> which, in it's wisdom, treated the need for MX RR's as an optional "we > think it's a good idea" type of thing.
Sorry, perhaps that statement wasn't fair. 2821 does require clients to query and use MX records. However, immediately thereafter it says, in effect, "but if there aren't any MX records, that's ok, use an A record instead." Arvel _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
