[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Minor isn't. It's a pardigm change

2008-03-31 11:15:03

Hi Paul,
At 02:39 31-03-2008, Paul Smith wrote:
- is going to send a message with the return-path of something(_at_)toaster(_dot_)example(_dot_)org, in which case I'd EXPECT to have an SMTP server running on it, hence an MX record would not be a bad thing, or - is going to send a message with a null return path, in which case what does it matter..

The discussion have been whether the receiver should explicitly specify a MX RR to determine whether it accepts mail. If we stretch the MX RR requirement to a forward and reverse model, then the sender ( also has to have a MX RR. This means that the change affects both senders and receivers. If we use a null return-path, the sender won't know whether there was a delivery failure.

Personally, I can see a strong point for requiring MX records for any domain which can receive mail as it removes a big ambiguity. Anyone who doesn't set one up will soon notice that things aren't working and will fix it. If a mail administrator is on 'talking terms' with the DNS administrator enough to have an AAAA record assigned to them, surely they're on talking terms enough to have an MX record set up as well, especially since the DNS administrator should know enough to know that one is expected.

We then have to elect whether we want a mail service as we add the Address record. If we want to run a mail service later, it can be an administrative burden to get the MX RR added.