spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: the "implicit-MX" rule and a proposed BCP

2004-02-14 07:26:23
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:

I used to be opposed to the idea of having an MX record as a MUST.  Today
I'm not so sure anymore.

So, for starters, what about these (the concept, not the text please):

[SNIP]

- The resulting addresses MUST have PTR records, and these PTR records
  MUST match the host.  The following lookups will still work but are
  discouraged:
  somehost -> a.b.c.d; a.b.c.d -> otherhost; otherhost -> a.b.c.d

This is absolutely standard setup for many places. domain.com => a.b.c.d 
=> mailhost.comain.com => a.b.c.d. This happens because domain.com might 
be needed as a www or telnet server, and this might be on a separate 
system to the MX. I've always considered it peculiar that DNS specified 
what is effectively a TCP redirect for port 25, but it does, and that's 
how it's used.

  The following will NOT result in a valid lookup:
  somehost -> a.b.c.d; a.b.c.d -> otherhost; otherhost -> p.q.r.s

These last conditions are naturally required of any DNS-based lookup.

S.

-- 
Shevek                                    http://www.anarres.org/
I am the Borg.                         http://www.gothnicity.org/