Re: [mailop] Null MX & Preference

2016-07-18 Thread Dave Warren
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

Re: [mailop] Null MX & Preference

2016-07-15 Thread David Conrad
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

Re: [mailop] Null MX & Preference

2016-07-15 Thread Michael Peddemors
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

Re: [mailop] Null MX & Preference

2016-07-15 Thread John Levine
>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

Re: [mailop] Null MX & Preference

2016-07-15 Thread John Levine
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

Re: [mailop] Null MX & Preference

2016-07-15 Thread John Levine
>> 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

Re: [mailop] Null MX & Preference

2016-07-14 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian
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?

Re: [mailop] Null MX & Preference

2016-07-14 Thread Mark Foster
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

Re: [mailop] Null MX & Preference

2016-07-14 Thread Franck Martin via mailop
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

Re: [mailop] Null MX & Preference

2016-07-14 Thread Franck Martin via mailop
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

Re: [mailop] Null MX & Preference

2016-07-14 Thread Steve Atkins
> 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