http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3417
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-05-26 09:31 ------- Subject: Re: New Rule: Checking sender IP against MX records From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 11:59:49PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >That's not my issue. "MX" is meant to specify who receives mail for > >given domain/host/etc. It's now suggested to overload MX to also mean > >who can send mail for give domain/host/etc. > > Yes. Like many other rules - RCVD_IN_* , DNS_FROM_RFCI_DSN, NO_DNS_FOR_FROM None of those overload a DNS RR types. RCVD_IN_*, and DNS_FROM_RFCI_DSN all request A records, which are for doing name->IP lookups. Via the rule, for a name request you get back an IP. No overloading (what you do with the IP is up to you). NO_DNS_FOR_FROM looks for either an A or MX record to exist, regardless of the data therein. So no overloading. The draft/your rule overloads "MX", which is meant to specify "when sending mail to this host/domain, try delivering mail to a specific list of mail orders using a specific set of priorities". The overload is that "MX" is now also supposed to specify which servers can send mail as the host/domain. A "correct" solution would be to make a new RR, say "MS" which you can then use to specify senders since they are quite commonly different than the hosts that receive mail. This is what SPF does, right now using TXT records, but there is talk about creating a new RR for this purpose. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
