On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:09:45 -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
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.
I get it, my error, RTFA applies.
Regards
Karl Prince
______________________________________________________________
Email via Mailtraq4Free from Enstar (www.mailtraqdirect.co.uk)