Hi guys, did you by any chance have the time to look at this?
On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 2:05 PM Wietse Venema <wie...@porcupine.org> wrote: > Tomas Korbar: > > Hi Guys, > > is there a plan to release this in one of the experimental releases? > > I am ok with providing some help if needed. > > I don't want to be annoying, I just don't want this to be forgotten. > > You are not fogotten. > > This will be in the experimental release before it appears in the > next stable release. I have been a bit short on time recently, and > like the rest of Postfix this has to be done right. > > Wietse > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 5:58 PM Viktor Dukhovni <vik...@dukhovni.org> > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 11:46:09AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > > > > > > And of course we can always rely on Microsoft's " > mail.protection.outlook.com" > > > > > nameservers to exhibit suboptimal behaviour. Probing for SRV > records > > > > > there (though unlikely to happen in practice) yields an unexpected > > > > > NOTIMP, and SERVFAIL from recursive resolvers: > > > > > > > > See, I was justified in my reluctance to do opportunistic SRV lookups > > > > by default. Thanks for doing my homework. > > > > > > > > > Such issues are otherwise rare, but the proof of concept does > point out > > > > > that brokenness is possible. > > > > > > > > I'm a tad surprised, because MS seems to a prominent user of this. > > > > > > My example is artificial, the autoconfig suffixes are recipient > domains, > > > not MX host domains, so autoconfig lookups for " > mail.protection.outlook.com" > > > wouldn't normally happen, that's where the customer MX host names live, > > > but it is not itself a recipient domain. > > > > > > DNS for "mail.protection.outlook.com" is handled by particularly > > > retarded loabalancers, which don't do EDNS(0), barely handle A/AAAA > > > lookups and return NOTIMP in response to queries for most other record > > > types... > > > > > > -- > > > Viktor. > > > > > > > > >
