Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Dyer-Bennet writes:
> > Scott Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 15 January 2001 at 17:24:13 -0500
> >
> > > And, since MXPS is not an accepted Internet standard, the (unlikely,
> > > but possible) situation where somebody has chosen an MX priority which
> > > isn't MXPS-compatible should be handled gracefully.
> >
> > I think that's the clinching argument; it's vital that people using MX
> > in full accordance with the RFCs who happen to hit our magic numbers
> > not get screwed.
>
> Why not ask him to change his MX number? There can be at most one
> host which has port 209 bound AND an MX priority in the 12800-13056
> range.
Right, if they are listening on port 209, they have an MXPS MX
record, and it at least vaguely seems to be speaking QMTP, I think
it's a perfectly valid assumption that they're running qmail, and
would like their mail delivered via QMTP.
The issue I was concerned about was the situation where they had an
MXPS MX record, but no QMTP listener at all. As I read your previous
comment, you were advocating bouncing the message in that situation;
that is what I was concerned about. I may have just misread your
message.
Looking back over the discussion, it looks like the topic may have
been whether to bounce the message if mailroutes explicitly says to
use QMTP. I agree that bouncing is appropriate in this situation.
Sorry if this has all been a misunderstanding,
-----ScottG.
