william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Terry Fielder wrote:
Hmmm. Isn't that a violation of some RFC? Because allowing a domain
to send but never receive means that there is no recourse for abuse@
postmaster@ etc. Indeed, not even anywhere to send DSN's...
Perhaps I am missing something, please set me straight. :)
Yahoo is saying that means the domain does not send email - basicly its
similar to when you put "v=spf1 -all" in your spf record and they want
people to use it as such replacement (yahoo is not a fan or others doing
spf as you know...).
I think you are correct, and I don't want to argue with you, but the RFC:
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-delany-nullmx/
Says "This document formally defines the "NULL MX" as a simple mechanism
by which a domain can indicate that it will never accept email."
"accept email" != "send email"
It's too bad one has to read the whole RFC to get the picture that, in
the context of NULL MX "accept email" == "send email" by implication.
Would have been clearer to me on first read if: "This document formally
defines the "NULL MX" as a simple mechanism by which a domain can
indicate that it will never accept email and therefore (implies?) also
does not send email"
Terry
However it really is a pure replacement since with
SPF you're still leaving yourself option to receive email to that domain
(and just indicate it is not used in return-path).
--
Terry Fielder
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Associate Director Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com