-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
Receivers just shouldn't be using blacklists with stupid listing
policies.
No idea why _other_ folks submit to bogusmx etc., I simply do it when I
have a serious technical problem, reasons irrelevant (not limited to
abuse). In your case I'd guess that somebody tried to reach you and
couldn't because of this double CNAME trick, AFAIK explicitly verboten in
a RfC.
Where is this being verboten? I only use MX->CNAME (or MX->CNAME->CNAME)
because I believe it is technically valid. I would not be using it if I
believed it was verboten, so I'd really like to know.
RFCI is about RfC ignorance, you're not forced to follow RfCs.
Perhaps RFCI should specify exactly what constitutes RFC ignorance. Is it
ignoring a "MUST"? Or just ignoring a "SHOULD"? Or even just a "should"?
They also should refer to the exact RFC clauses in question. That would
make their blacklists appear more serious.
The way it is now, I don't think they can be taken seriously, at least not
as far as the bogusmx list is concerned.
Anyway, it is within their full right to publish bogus blacklists.
BTW, RFCI itself was also once listed for a day, because it didn't accept
mail to <postmaster>.
At least they're being consequential. That doesn't really compensate for
their other problems, though.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCpITlwL7PKlBZWjsRAguVAJ9o523CTIvJHPXbcrQ4VMGGAG0ycACglJVl
/k+TcbmupxsDggz0T9z/+AM=
=mMOZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----