Re: [DNSOP] MX 0 . standard way of saying we don't do email ?
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009, Peter Koch wrote: The clean solution would involve some measurement regarding the volume of non-spam (yeah, rathole) that is delivered through A-without-MX and some willingness to move away from the fallback. In my experience the most common problematic messages with non-MX domains are transactional email from web servers. The volume is not particularly high, but the messages tend to be important to the recipients, and problems tend to be difficult to fix if that requires assistance from the webmaster. There's no chance that this situation will ever significantly improve. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] MX 0 . standard way of saying we don't do email ?
Todd Glassey wrote: Daniel Senie wrote: On Apr 14, 2009, at 2:54 AM, Douglas Otis wrote: On Apr 13, 2009, at 7:01 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: If a application is doing the wrong thing w.r.t. SRV records then fix the application. The root servers can handle a A and queries for .. Most cache's will correctly negatively cache such responses. As for MX 0 . the sooner this gets defined as no SMTP service for this domain the better. The cost for changing this is only every going to increase. It may take years before a significant portion of SMTP servers recognize root domains as meaning no service. An alternative would be to require MX records to assert SMTP service. A positive assertion will not impose additional burdens on root servers, but will necessitate explicit DNS provisions to exchange SMTP messages. With 19 out of 20 messages being abusive and largely from compromised systems, requiring a domain to assert their intent to exchange public SMTP messages will encourage adoption without burdening root servers with strategies sure to generate extraneous traffic beyond their control. SRV records have demonstrated the inability of roots to ensure applications mitigate extraneous traffic. Expanding upon this failure seems sure to result in a growing number of wildcard MX records targeting roots. Negative caching of randomly spoofed domains might not be an effective control. It seems unwise to encourage a greater use of wildcard records that target roots. I agree with Doug. The most reasonable course of action would be an IETF document, perhaps a BCP, that indicates SMTP transports should ONLY do MX lookups to find the mail server for a domain, and not fall back on A records. I'd endorse this, and would work on such a document if there were interest. The big question is whether it would be done in DNSOP, since it affects how DNS records are interpreted, or in the defunct SMTP group's list, since it affects how mail servers interpret DNS information. I specifically do NOT agree with the MX 0 . approach, and do not see any reason why this would be a better solution than simply not having MX records at all. True, during implementation of an MX requirement, some portion of sites might have difficulty receiving email until they add an MX record. But adding MX records is a well-known process, and the effort for those domains that haven't bothered with them in the past will not be onerous Daniel the reason is simple - because defining a MX 0 shows a specific intent. Having no MX record at all shows sloppy domain management and that there was no properly formed domain profile in the master public lookup's, i.e. DNS. By the way NEA desparately needs the ability to find a MX service in its operations IMHO. So the idea is that there really isnt a need to make the world a better place for sloppy domain admin's, but that there is a need to properly define the positive and negative status of any domain element Proper is in the eye of the beholder. I happen to think it's more proper for a NODATA response to an MX query to signal the absence of mail deliverability to a particular domain, which it unambiguously and with specific intent does if and when the A/ failover is removed from the SMTP specification. I'll note that the only subset of domain admins who would be negatively impacted by the removal of A/ failover from SMTP, are those who are currently receiving mail by forcing clients to perform that failover. The polite and courteous thing is to provide MX records regardless, to save the mail clients one or more lookups. Is there a need to make the world a better place for impolite and/or discourteous domain admins? I hereby register my support of removing A/ failover from the SMTP specification (not that it carries much weight here on DNSOP, I realize), and my opposition to imbuing a certain MX target, namely, the root name, with a special meaning in this context, because a) these special meaning records use up resources that a NODATA response does not, and b) whenever the special meaning is -- as it is inexorably -- misinterpreted, or misunderstood, it results in more junk query traffic to the root nameservers. -Kevin ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] MX 0 . standard way of saying we don't do email ?
On Apr 11 2009, Florian Weimer wrote: The MX RR will be ignored. There will be an DNS request and a fallback to the A RR for security.eu.debian.org. Newer versions of sendmail and Postfix will treat that MX RR as a bad MX and reject the message instead of retrying. Exim also treats the record as a no SMTP service here indication. I would even go so far to call this a de-facto standard (which just hasn't been documented by the IETF). However, it's maybe worth pointing out that Exim also provides support for the alternative in which the absence of an MX record implies an invalid mail domain. Specifically, the mx_domains option on a dnslookup router specifies domains for which fallback to using an address record should not occur (setting it to * would make that apply universally). We have used this rule locally for domains under cam.ac.uk for a very long time, which I am sure is why Philip Hazel implemented the option in the first place. Exim also provides the ability to use different retry rules in the case when the target was found via an A or record, and these are quite often used to give up (much) sooner on such deliveries. -- Chris Thompson Email: c...@cam.ac.uk ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] MX 0 . standard way of saying we don't do email ?
On Apr 14, 2009, at 12:40 PM, SM wrote: I don't think you can override a Draft Standard with a BCP. There was a discussion about the fallback to A/ RRs (implicit MX) last year during a Last Call. The consensus was to keep it in the SMTP standard. The RFC 282x update effort was to ensure compliance with dependency changes since their completion. This basis excluded consideration of protocol changes. The update did not close the book on changes to SMTP that would make it better behaved. The Internet, and DNS in particular, will become unworkable whenever some protocol becomes a vector for undesired traffic then requires global changes to unrelated systems. Defensive wildcard records targeting roots should not be published by all networks and systems not intended to handle the protocol becoming an undesired traffic vector. One issue raised was to ensure SMTP independence of DNS when there is an MX record mandate. For example, when hostname addresses are placed into host tables, MTAs should still exchange messages. Most SMTP servers are doing extensive rule checking based upon several list types. A rule that requires MX RRs MUST also include exceptions based upon information from other sources. To help SMTP make a transition to an MX RR requirement, a new RFC related to DNS failure detection may thereby enable DNS related rule exceptions. ADSP, about to be published, might include some of the needed language. -Doug ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] MX 0 . standard way of saying we don't do email ?
On Apr 14, 2009, at 6:57 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: An alternative would be to require MX records to assert SMTP service. A positive assertion will not impose additional burdens on root servers, but will necessitate explicit DNS provisions to exchange SMTP messages. With 19 out of 20 messages being abusive and largely from compromised systems, requiring a domain to assert their intent to exchange public SMTP messages will encourage adoption without burdening root servers with strategies sure to generate extraneous traffic beyond their control. this also worries me since it makes good mail less deliverable as the cost of stopping blowback, and it won't slow bad mail down at all. Reverse DNS could be placed in the same category. Reverse DNS is not well supported on some networks. Resulting DNS timeouts reduces MTAs resources and can lead to chronic unseen failures to connect. This does cause the loss of good email. A domain might make exceptions to a MUST HAVE MX RR rule at their MTA that is receiving messages from systems they monitor whenever adding an MX RR for the domain would otherwise attract undesired email abuse. With a required MX RR convention, not publishing the MX record will offer greater protection from abuse for all hosts that publish IP address records in DNS. As IPv6 becomes more widely used and Internet use becomes more diversified, more embedded devices and networks may be unable to endure the typical email abuse caused by backscatter or various checks made in an effort to determine whether a domain accepts the SMTP message traffic. A required MX RR rule answers the question of SMTP exchange without burdening either uninvolved hosts or roots. This rule may become a necessity in response to poorly considered tactics often used to defend MTAs from abuse. Passing email's burdens onto otherwise uninvolved systems will not better defend the Internet. Publishing an MX record would be a minor step toward increased protections and in ensuring email delivery which most domains have already taken. -Doug ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] MX 0 . standard way of saying we don't do email ?
Daniel Senie wrote: On Apr 14, 2009, at 2:54 AM, Douglas Otis wrote: On Apr 13, 2009, at 7:01 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: If a application is doing the wrong thing w.r.t. SRV records then fix the application. The root servers can handle a Aand queries for .. Most cache's will correctly negatively cache such responses. As for MX 0 . the sooner this gets defined as no SMTP service for this domain the better. The cost for changing this is only every going to increase. It may take years before a significant portion of SMTP servers recognize root domains as meaning no service. An alternative would be to require MX records to assert SMTP service. A positive assertion will not impose additional burdens on root servers, but will necessitate explicit DNS provisions to exchange SMTP messages. With 19 out of 20 messages being abusive and largely from compromised systems, requiring a domain to assert their intent to exchange public SMTP messages will encourage adoption without burdening root servers with strategies sure to generate extraneous traffic beyond their control. SRV records have demonstrated the inability of roots to ensure applications mitigate extraneous traffic. Expanding upon this failure seems sure to result in a growing number of wildcard MX records targeting roots. Negative caching of randomly spoofed domains might not be an effective control. It seems unwise to encourage a greater use of wildcard records that target roots. I agree with Doug. The most reasonable course of action would be an IETF document, perhaps a BCP, that indicates SMTP transports should ONLY do MX lookups to find the mail server for a domain, and not fall back on A records. I'd endorse this, and would work on such a document if there were interest. The big question is whether it would be done in DNSOP, since it affects how DNS records are interpreted, or in the defunct SMTP group's list, since it affects how mail servers interpret DNS information. I specifically do NOT agree with the MX 0 . approach, and do not see any reason why this would be a better solution than simply not having MX records at all. True, during implementation of an MX requirement, some portion of sites might have difficulty receiving email until they add an MX record. But adding MX records is a well-known process, and the effort for those domains that haven't bothered with them in the past will not be onerous Daniel the reason is simple - because defining a MX 0 shows a specific intent. Having no MX record at all shows sloppy domain management and that there was no properly formed domain profile in the master public lookup's, i.e. DNS. By the way NEA desparately needs the ability to find a MX service in its operations IMHO. So the idea is that there really isnt a need to make the world a better place for sloppy domain admin's, but that there is a need to properly define the positive and negative status of any domain element - including time servers (sorry couldnt help but sneak that one in). Todd I have used another solution as well, that being: example.com.INMXnomail.example.com. nomail.example.com.INA127.0.0.1 Those attempting to spam a domain that doesn't accept email will get upset with themselves, and not send packets to a server that's not interested. This does, sometimes, result in error messages for the sending server or their upstream relay, but keeps such alerts closer to the sender (who is likely a spammer anyway). ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.57/2059 - Release Date: 04/14/09 14:52:00 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] MX 0 . standard way of saying we don't do email ?
Hi Daniel, At 07:30 14-04-2009, Daniel Senie wrote: I agree with Doug. The most reasonable course of action would be an IETF document, perhaps a BCP, that indicates SMTP transports should ONLY do MX lookups to find the mail server for a domain, and not fall back on A records. I'd endorse this, and would work on such a document if there were interest. The big question is whether it would be done in DNSOP, since it affects how DNS records are interpreted, or in the defunct SMTP group's list, since it affects how mail servers interpret DNS information. I don't think you can override a Draft Standard with a BCP. There was a discussion about the fallback to A/ RRs (implicit MX) last year during a Last Call. The consensus was to keep it in the SMTP standard. I doubt that any further discussion on the subject will result in a different outcome. Regards, -sm ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] MX 0 . standard way of saying we don't do email ?
Daniel Senie wrote: On Apr 14, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Todd Glassey wrote: Daniel Senie wrote: On Apr 14, 2009, at 2:54 AM, Douglas Otis wrote: On Apr 13, 2009, at 7:01 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: If a application is doing the wrong thing w.r.t. SRV records then fix the application. The root servers can handle a Aand queries for .. Most cache's will correctly negatively cache such responses. As for MX 0 . the sooner this gets defined as no SMTP service for this domain the better. The cost for changing this is only every going to increase. It may take years before a significant portion of SMTP servers recognize root domains as meaning no service. An alternative would be to require MX records to assert SMTP service. A positive assertion will not impose additional burdens on root servers, but will necessitate explicit DNS provisions to exchange SMTP messages. With 19 out of 20 messages being abusive and largely from compromised systems, requiring a domain to assert their intent to exchange public SMTP messages will encourage adoption without burdening root servers with strategies sure to generate extraneous traffic beyond their control. SRV records have demonstrated the inability of roots to ensure applications mitigate extraneous traffic. Expanding upon this failure seems sure to result in a growing number of wildcard MX records targeting roots. Negative caching of randomly spoofed domains might not be an effective control. It seems unwise to encourage a greater use of wildcard records that target roots. I agree with Doug. The most reasonable course of action would be an IETF document, perhaps a BCP, that indicates SMTP transports should ONLY do MX lookups to find the mail server for a domain, and not fall back on A records. I'd endorse this, and would work on such a document if there were interest. The big question is whether it would be done in DNSOP, since it affects how DNS records are interpreted, or in the defunct SMTP group's list, since it affects how mail servers interpret DNS information. I specifically do NOT agree with the MX 0 . approach, and do not see any reason why this would be a better solution than simply not having MX records at all. True, during implementation of an MX requirement, some portion of sites might have difficulty receiving email until they add an MX record. But adding MX records is a well-known process, and the effort for those domains that haven't bothered with them in the past will not be onerous Daniel the reason is simple - because defining a MX 0 shows a specific intent. Having no MX record at all shows sloppy domain management and that there was no properly formed domain profile in the master public lookup's, i.e. DNS. By the way NEA desparately needs the ability to find a MX service in its operations IMHO. So the idea is that there really isnt a need to make the world a better place for sloppy domain admin's, but that there is a need to properly define the positive and negative status of any domain element - including time servers (sorry couldnt help but sneak that one in). A related concern is the solution using MX 0 . then results in a further need, a wildcard in every zone, so that the base domain name is protected, and so that any hosts within the domain name are protected. So for example, you'd need an MX on example.com, but also a wildcard so that someone doing an MX lookup on www.example.com also gets told to get lost. So this is a further argument in my mind for a change in default SMTP transport behavior, as a zone with no MX records at all would indicate don't send mail here. A zone with an MX on the domain name but nothing specified on a per-host basis or wildcard indicates we take mail, only for email addresses @example.com. Again, this winds up being desirable as it should result in less traffic in the long run being sent to web servers and other servers that do not handle SMTP anyway. As for the argument raised about IN-ADDR in relation to SMTP, there are already large email outfits that refuse email from hosts that do not have at least some result showing for a PTR lookup on the connecting IP address. Whether you like it or not, that's already in use, and it does block some spam. Yes - but this is an elegant way of sending telemetry to a client and that's why it works IMHO. Todd No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.57/2059 - Release Date: 04/14/09 14:52:00 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] MX 0 . standard way of saying we don't do email ?
In message a65d48e6-b91a-477e-aad0-8777aa57e...@mail-abuse.org, Douglas Otis writes: On Apr 11, 2009, at 4:25 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: The MX RR will be ignored. There will be an DNS request and a fallback to the A RR for security.eu.debian.org. Newer versions of sendmail and Postfix will treat that MX RR as a bad MX and reject the message instead of retrying. Exim also treats the record as a no SMTP service here indication. I would even go so far to call this a de-facto standard (which just hasn't been documented by the IETF). It would incorrect to describe MX records targeting the root as being a widely adopted standard to signal No SMTP Service. In the past, Paul Vixie raised concerns about even using root targets within SRV records, which has always been defined as a means to signal no service. He said that his experience at the root had shown programmers should not be trusted to properly recognize root domains within SRV records. In the case of SMTP, there was never a standard to properly ignore root targets. A signaling scheme that shifts the signaling of no SMTP service responses to the root may prove detrimental. If a application is doing the wrong thing w.r.t. SRV records then fix the application. The root servers can handle a A and queries for .. Most cache's will correctly negatively cache such responses. As for MX 0 . the sooner this gets defined as no SMTP service for this domain the better. The cost for changing this is only every going to increase. Mark -Doug ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: mark_andr...@isc.org ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] MX 0 . standard way of saying we don't do email ?
Hi, I have just encountered strange thing: security.eu.debian.org mail is handled by 0 . I am not sure if pointing MX record to other peoples zone is good idea. And the root zone has it's own deal of DoS attack even without random MXes pointing into it. MX 0 . is the standard way of saying we don't do email. Does anybody have an experience with that? How different MTAs behave? How does bots behave? My opinion is that it can trigger IN A(AAA) requests to a root zone in some cases, but there could be RFC I am not aware of which defines this thing as standard. Ondrej -- Ondrej Sury technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer - CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.s...@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.s...@nic.cz sip%3aondrej.s...@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 - ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] MX 0 . standard way of saying we don't do email ?
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 09:57:14AM +0200, Ond?ej Surý ondrej.s...@nic.cz wrote a message of 77 lines which said: MX 0 . is the standard way of saying we don't do email. Bullshit. How different MTAs behave? Postfix does not ask the root, it stops after it had the MX: Apr 10 10:08:48 aetius postfix/smtp[32380]: warning: valid_hostname: empty hostname Apr 10 10:08:48 aetius postfix/smtp[32380]: warning: malformed domain name in resource data of MX record for security.eu.debian.org: Apr 10 10:08:48 aetius postfix/smtp[32380]: 0FA6094E35: to=doesnotex...@security.eu.debian.org, relay=none, delay=0.05, delays=0.04/0.01/0/0, dsn=5.4.4, status=bounced (Name service error for name=security.eu.debian.org type=MX: Malformed or unexpected name server reply) there could be RFC I am not aware of which defines this thing as standard. There is no standard way to say I don't want to receive email (unfortunately). ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] MX 0 . standard way of saying we don't do email ?
In message 20090410081050.ga13...@nic.fr, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes: On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 09:57:14AM +0200, Ond?ej Sur=FD ondrej.s...@nic.cz wrote = a message of 77 lines which said: MX 0 . is the standard way of saying we don't do email. Bullshit. How different MTAs behave? Postfix does not ask the root, it stops after it had the MX: Apr 10 10:08:48 aetius postfix/smtp[32380]: warning: valid_hostname: empty = hostname Apr 10 10:08:48 aetius postfix/smtp[32380]: warning: malformed domain name = in resource data of MX record for security.eu.debian.org: = Apr 10 10:08:48 aetius postfix/smtp[32380]: 0FA6094E35: to=3Ddoesnotex...@= security.eu.debian.org, relay=3Dnone, delay=3D0.05, delays=3D0.04/0.01/0/0= , dsn=3D5.4.4, status=3Dbounced (Name service error for name=3Dsecurity.eu.= debian.org type=3DMX: Malformed or unexpected name server reply) there could be RFC I am not aware of which defines this thing as standard. There is no standard way to say I don't want to receive email (unfortunately). ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop This has been proposed in the past and is consistent with how SRV signals no support. FUD has always shot it down. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: mark_andr...@isc.org ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] MX 0 . standard way of saying we don't do email ?
At 00:57 10-04-2009, OndÅej Surý wrote: I have just encountered strange thing: http://security.eu.debian.orgsecurity.eu.debian.org mail is handled by 0 . I am not sure if pointing MX record to other peoples zone is good idea. And the root zone has it's own deal of DoS attack even without random MXes pointing into it. MX 0 . is the standard way of saying we don't do email. It's called NULL MX. There is an expired I-D about it at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/05aug/IDs/draft-delany-nullmx-00.txt The attempt to standardize the practice was viewed as a bad idea by the DNSEXT WG. Does anybody have an experience with that? How different MTAs behave? The MX RR will be ignored. There will be an DNS request and a fallback to the A RR for security.eu.debian.org. Newer versions of sendmail and Postfix will treat that MX RR as a bad MX and reject the message instead of retrying. Regards, -sm ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] MX 0 . standard way of saying we don't do email ?
At 2:08 -0700 4/10/09, SM wrote: It's called NULL MX. There is an expired I-D about it at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/05aug/IDs/draft-delany-nullmx-00.txt The attempt to standardize the practice was viewed as a bad idea by the DNSEXT WG. There are three messages in the namedroppers archive about this. One post says send it to DNSOP. (So, it's about time. ;) ) But the draft really isn't about DNS. It's about SMTP. The MX RR will be ignored. There will be an DNS request and a fallback to the A RR for security.eu.debian.org. Newer versions of sendmail and Postfix will treat that MX RR as a bad MX and reject the message instead of retrying. ...it's about SMTP... -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NeuStarYou can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468 Getting everything you want is easy if you don't want much. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] MX 0 . standard way of saying we don't do email ?
Since it looks like it is already in use (at least in some MTAs) I am willing to help to standardize this. However I lack an experience what to do if there is no smtp working group. Should I send it to apps area ml, or to chairs of apps area? It seems to be overkill to start whole wg just to standardize one draft, isn't it? Ondrej On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Edward Lewis ed.le...@neustar.biz wrote: At 2:08 -0700 4/10/09, SM wrote: It's called NULL MX. There is an expired I-D about it at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/05aug/IDs/draft-delany-nullmx-00.txt The attempt to standardize the practice was viewed as a bad idea by the DNSEXT WG. There are three messages in the namedroppers archive about this. One post says send it to DNSOP. (So, it's about time. ;) ) But the draft really isn't about DNS. It's about SMTP. The MX RR will be ignored. There will be an DNS request and a fallback to the A RR for security.eu.debian.org. Newer versions of sendmail and Postfix will treat that MX RR as a bad MX and reject the message instead of retrying. ...it's about SMTP... Ondrej -- Ondrej Sury technicky reditel/Chief Technical Officer - CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americka 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.s...@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.s...@nic.cz sip%3aondrej.s...@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 - ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] MX 0 . standard way of saying we don't do email ?
At 07:23 10-04-2009, OndÅej Surý wrote: Since it looks like it is already in use (at least in some MTAs) I am willing to help to standardize this. However I lack an experience what to do if there is no smtp working group. Should I send it to apps area ml, or to chairs of apps area? You can use the historical SMTP mailing list (ietf-s...@imc.org) to discuss about the draft. You might want to ask DNSOP to review the draft first. It seems to be overkill to start whole wg just to standardize one draft, isn't it? In this case, yes. At 08:41 10-04-2009, Edward Lewis wrote: Until the post, no one brought this to the WG's attention. This message ( http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2005/msg00944.html ) and some other messages on the ietf-smtp mailing list could be read as a lack of support for the draft. At 12:12 10-04-2009, Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= wrote: That list has been used for the development of RFC 5321 and it is going to be used for the desired Full Standard successor of it, No, that's going to be done on another mailing list once the WG is chartered. Regards, -sm ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] MX 0 . standard way of saying we don't do email ?
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 04:19:03PM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote: At 13:04 -0700 4/10/09, SM wrote: This message ( http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2005/msg00944.html ) and some other messages on the ietf-smtp mailing list could be read as a lack of support for the draft. Don't confuse disinterest with disapproval. ;) -- come on ed, just 'cause you disapproved of sub-typing TXT records... --bill ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
