On 2016-07-18 04:45, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
We have certainly encountered some that do not support a '.' value.
DNS Made Easy's web UI is like this. I've used their secondary services
for years, but recently I've been looking at their primary services and
it's a sloppy mess of things that
Michael,
On Jul 15, 2016, at 2:06 PM, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> Any one suggest a medium to encourage that amongst registrars?
http://icannregistrars.org
http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/rrsg
Regards,
-drc
(ICANN CTO, but speaking only for
Wouldn't it be nice if registrars (the one that provide default DNS when
you purchase) could be encouraged to add that TXT or SPF record as
default on all new domain purchases?
This would also encourage adoption of it as a whole, would like to
assume that real email admin's would update the
>In answer to the original question, I know that Gmam special cases
>MX 0 . to fail the message immediately.
Stupid laptop keyboard. That's Gmail doing the special cases.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
In article
you write:
>Doesn't receive emails, sure. Doesn't send emails, I look for the "SPF
>lockdown." Lots of places publish this as an SPF record: "v=spf1 -all"
Yes, that's what the RFC suggests.
In answer to the original
>> That is what I was thinking. I wasn’t sure if there is a specific
>> reason the preference is called out in the RFC.
We wanted something consistent.
>0 is the lowest preference MX and will therefore be tried first, hopefully
>overriding any other higher preference MXs that may exist.
The
On 15/07/16, 6:33 AM, "mailop on behalf of Mark Foster"
wrote:
> Why would any other preference MX exist for a domain not intended to
> be used for email?
They shouldn’t. Normally. But what if they do?
Surely if the MX record is declared as a . then the preference is
irrelevant?
On 15/07/2016 8:38 a.m., Brian Godiksen wrote:
I noticed inconsistencies in how domains are publishing null MX records. In
RFC7505 it states these records should be published with a preference number 0.
I am
indeed...
I think the null MX makes sense when there is an A or on the same
domain. It stops the mail server to try to deliver and wait 4+ days to
bounce the message.
Other MX that are always fun to use:
MX 10 localhost
;)
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Steve Atkins
I kind of see the null MX as a way to say that this domain does not send
emails. So it is more a test on the receiving side than on the sending side.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> > On Jul 14, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Brian Godiksen
> On Jul 14, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Brian Godiksen wrote:
>
> I noticed inconsistencies in how domains are publishing null MX records. In
> RFC7505 it states these records should be published with a preference number
> 0. I am seeing a variety of preferences specified
11 matches
Mail list logo