On Aug 15, 2007, at 5:34 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Yes, and this convention still generates nuisance root traffic
whenever the application fails to comprehend . is a special
target. This is true even when _defined_ as a special target for
the specific resource record, as with
i wasn't reading this thread at all since i thought it was about discovering
policy, like the subject says. horror of horrors, it's about dns internals,
which means the thread is not only mislabelled, but also off-topic. i think
it could go to [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], or perhaps
Section 5.1 of the updated version of 2821 allows A or
when there is no MX. This allowance must become obsolete and
the process ends when there is no MX record.
This idea is fundamentally flawed.
There is an assumption in the Internet that email is a universal
service. In
On Aug 14, 2007, at 10:22 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 11:58 +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
Since all valid email domains are required to have a working
postmaster you can safely drop any email from such domains.
Use of root . as a name for a target may create
On Aug 15, 2007, at 5:34 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Yes, and this convention still generates nuisance root traffic
whenever the application fails to comprehend . is a special
target. This is true even when _defined_ as a special target for
the specific resource record, as with SRV. In the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do not depend upon applications not to resolve addresses for root
names, even when a convention is explicit. Depending upon root
answers to support a protocol feature unrelated to DNS is normally
