[Top] [All Lists]

Re: There is at least one email server without MX RR but AAAA RR we all know

2008-04-04 12:40:38
On 2008-04-04 11:21:46 -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:

At 6:58 PM +0200 4/4/08, Michael Storz wrote:
Now, we can speculate

- Is the missing MX RR by intention?

Yes. Is there an email address at that you wanted to send mail 

Yes, there is. Or maybe I don't want to, but my MTA may want to:


This address is accepted, but random addresses at aren't:

250 2.1.5 <owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org>... Recipient ok
550 5.1.1 <dfhdffghfdgfhdfgdfhdfg(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org>... User unknown

or we could just ask Paul Hoffman :-)

Or, you can be more specific. What is the problem of a host that is 
never expected to be on the RHS of an email address expected to have 
an MX record?

It may not be expected to be there, but it is - just look at the return
path of any message of this list.

That's an honest question, given that it has been over 
12 years with the current setup.

The current setup is RFC-2821 compliant (although one could quibble
whether is really the "canonical" name of the host). It's
just an example where a domain name without an MX record is on the RHS
of email addresses. That doesn't seem to be intentional, judging from
your reaction.


   _  | Peter J. Holzer    | It took a genius to create [TeX],
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR       | and it takes a genius to maintain it.
| |   | hjp(_at_)hjp(_dot_)at         | That's not engineering, that's art.
__/   | |    -- David Kastrup in comp.text.tex

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature