> At 00:57 26-03-2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Which is not documented in any RFC despite being a good idea.
> >
> > It is easy to turn "MX 0 ." into "This domain doesn't support
> > email" as "." is not confusable with a hostname. There is no
> > reason to look up addresses records for "."
>
> There was an I-D, draft-delany-nullmx-00, which didn't make it to RFC status.
I was aware which is why I said "RFC" not "document".
> > Which could just be a misconfiguration. You still have to
> > look up addresses for "dev.null".
>
> Yes. People still do it.
Yes they do. We, the IETF, have failed them by not providing
them with a clear mechanism to do what they want without bad
side effects.
> > > If the implicit MX rule is depreciated for IPv6, the above won't be neede
> d.
> >
> > It's still needed to prevent the A lookup.
>
> It would be needed until IPv6 takes over.
It will be needed even *after* IPv6 takes over. There will
be lots of queries for A records long after the majority
of hosts don't have A records.
We need to remove the implict MX from A to prevent the A
record lookups occuring as things currently stand.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
