Hi SZÉPE, > > If not MX for foo.com exists then foo.com's port 25 is contacted > > directly, so an MX for foo.com defined as foo.com seems unnecessary. > > Excuse me, I object! > If you do internet mailing in the 21st century you *should* add an MX > record (and use SPF, DKIM and DMARC)
I assume that's just your subjective preference rather than an RFC, or similar, recommendation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mx_record#History_of_fallback_to_address_record says RFC 5321 still states the fallback. I don't recall that using A instead of MX stops SPF, etc. -- Cheers, Ralph. https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy
