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 c
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 ser
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 09:53:46AM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
> But the draft really isn't about DNS. It's about SMTP.
I'd say this is not either/or, it's the use of DNS in another protocol.
It has to be addressed in a cross-wg or cross-area effort. Developing
a DNS view here is fine.
/* hat of
On Apr 14, 2009, at 3:40 PM, SM wrote:
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 fa
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 A
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, an
* Paul Vixie:
>> > 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 ser
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
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 corr
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
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 cach
> > 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.
that would nev
12 matches
Mail list logo
