On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:39:53 -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:31:44PM +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.
|
| I disagree, with your proposed rule above for return-path
| without an MX or SPF, but with A (and matching PTR I assume)
|
| The RFC I can't quote off the top of my head, but I thought
| that a receiving MTA (and therefore sending MTA) could get away
| with just an A record for the Domain (giving a weight of 0), if
| no MX was declared.
That's the "implicit MX rule" which I mean to deprecate.
This is interesting (and I like it), I didn't see that coming,
however (devil's advocate mode on) are there any stats to how
much this rule is used in practice. I would hope it would be
somewhere between nil and zero, but a few more than that would
not be a great surprise.
Regards
Karl Prince
______________________________________________________________
Email via Mailtraq4Free from Enstar (www.mailtraqdirect.co.uk)