Tony Finch writes: > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, John C Klensin wrote: > >> And, unless I misread your note, I think that puts us in violent agreement. > > Yes :-) > > (Assuming that by "lower priority MX" you mean higher-numbered.)
I agree too. IPv6 sites have to have MXes and be IPv4-reachable somehow. I still can't understand why so many people here think an AAAA should suffice. Arnt
