At 00:57 26-03-2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
Which is not documented in any RFC despite being a good idea.
It is easy to turn "MX 0 ." into "This domain doesn't support
email" as "." is not confusable with a hostname. There is no
reason to look up addresses records for "."
There was an I-D, draft-delany-nullmx-00, which didn't make it to RFC status.
I was aware which is why I said "RFC" not "document".
Which could just be a misconfiguration. You still have to
look up addresses for "dev.null".
Yes. People still do it.
Yes they do. We, the IETF, have failed them by not providing
them with a clear mechanism to do what they want without bad
side effects.
If the implicit MX rule is depreciated for IPv6, the above won't be neede
d.
It's still needed to prevent the A lookup.
It would be needed until IPv6 takes over.
It will be needed even *after* IPv6 takes over. There will
be lots of queries for A records long after the majority
of hosts don't have A records.
We need to remove the implict MX from A to prevent the A
record lookups occuring as things currently stand.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews(_at_)isc(_dot_)org
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf