On 2008-04-04 11:21:46 -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > At 6:58 PM +0200 4/4/08, Michael Storz wrote: > >Now, we can speculate > > > >- Is the missing MX RR by intention? > > Yes. Is there an email address at mail.imc.org that you wanted to send mail > to.
Yes, there is. Or maybe I don't want to, but my MTA may want to:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This address is accepted, but random addresses at mail.imc.org aren't:
250 2.1.5 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Recipient ok
550 5.1.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User unknown
> >or we could just ask Paul Hoffman :-)
>
> Or, you can be more specific. What is the problem of a host that is
> never expected to be on the RHS of an email address expected to have
> an MX record?
It may not be expected to be there, but it is - just look at the return
path of any message of this list.
> That's an honest question, given that it has been over
> 12 years with the current setup.
The current setup is RFC-2821 compliant (although one could quibble
whether mail.imc.org is really the "canonical" name of the host). It's
just an example where a domain name without an MX record is on the RHS
of email addresses. That doesn't seem to be intentional, judging from
your reaction.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | It took a genius to create [TeX],
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | and it takes a genius to maintain it.
| | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | That's not engineering, that's art.
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- David Kastrup in comp.text.tex
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
