[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Minor is. It's not a pardigm change

2008-03-31 05:42:31

Rudy Nedved writes:
It appears that there has been a spontaneous desire for some spiffy new goals to be overloaded onto that one, long-standing *requirement*.

This amounts to retro-active re-design on-the-fly.

We can't escape redesigning this. IPv6 forces us to.
I still don't understand why IPv6 forces a redesign. I don't consider an MX record in the DNS system strongly tied to a transport.

Indeed. But this isn't about the MX, it's about what to do when the domain in question has no MX.


I like falling back to A only. That imposes no new requirements on existing code or IPv4-only hosts, and it doesn't make unrealistic presumptions about what software runs on future IPv6-only devices.
In spirit I agree.

If something is trying to deliver e-mail, they have a choice between looking up an A or AAAA record or looking up MX records.

RFC 2821 page 60 says quite clearly that if MX records exist, they must be used, and that an A record is used only if there aren't any MXes. 974/1123 say much the same (some details are different).

I wouldn't quite describe this as a "faling back".

I hope you understand my perspective.

I'm afraid I don't really. Sorry.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>