ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt> (A NULL MX Resource Record for Domains that Accept No Mail) to Proposed Standard

2014-07-18 19:10:33

In message <C5EE6366-7EFF-4B7C-BF09-9579C6D24393(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com>, Ted 
Lemon writes
:
On Jul 17, 2014, at 11:26 PM, Mark Andrews <marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org> wrote:
There are lots of machines which do not have the SMTP port configured
yet have A or AAAA records resulting in a implicit MX record and
week+ long no delivery notifications.

Just about everyone with a outsourced HTTP service needs to be able
to stop MTAs sending to email to the outsourced service.  MUA's
could also lookup the MX RRset and issue a error without talking
to the MSA.

I must be missing something here.   You're saying you want me to set up a
null MX for all my hosts to prevent someone else's MTA having
undeliverable mail sitting in the queue for a week?   Why would I care
about your MTA's queue?   Why would this issue even be on my radar?
 

The second example you give, stopping mail being delivered to the web
server, is actually served better by setting up a proper MX that directs
the mail to the right server.   Does an HTTP server really care about the
occasional SYN to port 25?

Is it?  You are forcing me to configure a MTA to accept mail for
"www.example.com", even if I don't want to, because otherwise I
have to trust a hosting service to not run a smtp service on the
http server.  I'm giving the hosting service stuff I want to be
made public.  I want to prevent stuff, that should remain private,
from being sent to their machine by mistake.

I'm not against this draft moving forward, but I find these use cases
somewhat puzzling.

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka(_at_)isc(_dot_)org

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