I thought "MX 0 ." asserted not "we send no mail" but rather "we
receive no mail".
That's what it means now. The various MX 0 . proposals overload it
to mean that you don't send any mail either.
Is it fair to require all other protocols to publish a bogus MX
record to Opt-out from SMTP?
...huh? I don't see that other protocols have anything to do with
this.
If anything, Opt-Out and email does not have a good history. It
would be much more fair to require that there be an MX record before
accepting email that references the domain.
That is incompatabile with the existing spec, which means it's
incompatible with a substantial fraction of the (huge) installed base
of mailservers - ie, a great many of them depend on
fallback-to-address.
Still, if you think it's a good idea, give it a try. It might work for
some sites.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse(_at_)rodents-montreal(_dot_)org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg