On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 05:53:39AM +0100, Dave Airlie wrote: > you don't need an MX record.. an A is tried if no MX exists..
True -- i didn't realise this. For those interested, seems to be a requirement of RFC974. I wonder what prompted the author to give the 'benefit of the doubt' to servers with no MX records? Historical reasons? RFC 974 January 1986 Mail Routing and the Domain System The explanation of how mailers should decide how to route a message is discussed in terms of the problem of a mailer on a host with domain name LOCAL trying to deliver a message addressed to the domain name REMOTE. [--snip--] It is possible that the list of MXs in the response to the query will be empty. This is a special case. If the list is empty, mailers should treat it as if it contained one RR, an MX RR with a preference value of 0, and a host name of REMOTE. (I.e., REMOTE is its only MX). In addition, the mailer should do no further processing on the list, but should attempt to deliver the message to REMOTE. The idea here is that if a domain fails to advertise any information about a particular name we will give it the benefit of the doubt and attempt delivery. -i -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
