spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: implicit mx rule

2004-06-18 15:09:45
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:59:31PM +0100, Karl Prince wrote:
| > | > Personally, I don't think the above should be necessary.  I
| > | > think that if you get mail from a return-path that has only
| > | > an A record and neither an MX record nor an SPF record, you
| > | > should assume that it's not meant to be an MTA.  This rule
| > | > subsumes the MTAMark semantic.
| 
| My reasoning for this, was that for a bounce the HELO is used 
| to provide the domain for the SPF check (as long is it is a 
| resolving FQDN), and your proposed rule would be part of the 
| SPF checks (I assune)

No, my rule is for return-paths only.  HELO names would be
allowed to continue to have only A and no MX.