Terry Fielder wrote:
Theo Schlossnagle wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
<snip>
Legalistic reason: "MX 0 ." is illegal because "." is not a valid
FQDN, at
least not for what is generally considered an FQDN by the SPF
specification.
Yahoo believes that a "NULL MX" means the following:
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-delany-nullmx/
I'd tend to agree.
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. :)
The purpose of telling the world that you _do not_ recieve mail is that
they can outright reject any mail from that domain. The purpose of the
NULL MX is to tell the world that domain is not used for email. It's
like an spf -all record, except isn't accompanied by the contraversy
that surrounds SPF.
--
// Theo Schlossnagle
// Principal Engineer -- http://www.omniti.com/~jesus/
// Ecelerity: Run with it. -- http://www.omniti.com/
-------
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