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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
