On 2/26/21 12:10 PM, b...@uu3.net wrote:
Hmm right... Somehow I tought that having that special Null MX will
silently discard message... I dont know why...
It's Friday. I'm presuming that many of us have had a long week and are
ready for the weekend. ;-)
So, RFC 7505 is pretty much even
In article you write:
>Hmm right... Somehow I tought that having that special Null MX
>will silently discard message... I dont know why...
>
>So, RFC 7505 is pretty much even pointless in my opinion.
>You have to do more.. to pretty much achieve the same..
>Its just easier to not having MX on
In article
you write:
>1. Is there anyone actively using this Null MX? If so, may I please see
>that actual record line (in BIND zone file format) just to satisfy myself
>that I wrote mine correctly?
Yes.
services.net. 3600IN MX 0 .
>2. Which one makes more sense from the
I think just about everything has been said beyond contacting the operators of
the
online testing tools and requesting that they update their tool or to take it
down.
A broken tool is worse that no tool. The is too much out-of-date stuff on the
Internet. We should all be doing our little bits
Grant Taylor via NANOG
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Newbie Question: Is anyone actually using the Null MX (RFC 7505)?
> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:03:37 -0700
>
> On 2/26/21 11:46 AM, b...@uu3.net wrote:
>> Well, I bet my legacy system will bounce it for example...
>
On Fri, 2021-02-26 at 12:03 -0700, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:
> On 2/26/21 11:46 AM, b...@uu3.net wrote:
> > Well, I bet my legacy system will bounce it for example...
>
> What specifically is the bounce?
> I thought the purpose of the Null MX was to do two things:
> 1) Provide as an MX that
as email destinations.. Less records in DNS..
-- Original message --
From: Grant Taylor via NANOG
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Newbie Question: Is anyone actually using the Null MX (RFC 7505)?
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:03:37 -0700
On 2/26/21 11:46 AM, b...@uu3.net wrote
On 2/26/21 11:46 AM, b...@uu3.net wrote:
Well, I bet my legacy system will bounce it for example...
What specifically is the bounce?
I thought the purpose of the Null MX was to do two things:
1) Provide as an MX that can't be connected to.
2) Serve as a signal to things that know how to
NANOG on behalf of
b...@uu3.net
Date: Friday, 26 February 2021 at 10:51 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Newbie Question: Is anyone actually using the Null MX (RFC 7505)?
Thats cute, but remember that there are gazylion of legacy systems
on Internet as well. They might have no clue wha
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Newbie Question: Is anyone actually using the Null MX (RFC 7505)?
Thats cute, but remember that there are gazylion of legacy systems
on Internet as well. They might have no clue what do do with it..
Also remember that MTA is supposed to accept email to [ip] too.
On my
Thats cute, but remember that there are gazylion of legacy systems
on Internet as well. They might have no clue what do do with it..
Also remember that MTA is supposed to accept email to [ip] too.
On my opinion, its best to just have no MX record at all.
While MTA can fallback and try to do
MTAs don’t care what online analysis tools tell you and setting a null MX for a
domain that you don’t receive mail for will work just fine, for the reasons
explained in the rfc
Having no MX means the smtp connection will fall back to the A record for your
domain if one exists
--srs
12 matches
Mail list logo
