[TAG] A couple of questions regarding Mail policy

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 03:28:10PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Jay R. Ashworth (jra at baylink.com):
> > On reflection, I misremembered.  The situation *I* banged into was
> > whether machines must have MX records *in addition* to their A records
> > in order to be valid targets for mail; *this* is the situation over
> > which there is apparently controversy.  
> 
> Ah yes.  I remember that one.
> 
> Objecting to hosts receiving mail at their "A" addresses absent an MX
> record is, I suppose, defensible -- if you're seriously
> obsessive-compulsive about Thou Shall Observe the Letter of the RFCs and
> Nothing But.  ;->

I believe I implied that it might have been djb.  I think that's wrong;
I think it was a whackadoo on NANOG.  One of the ORSC-related people,
alas; possibly Sexton.  I am going to have to go find out now.

>                    Everyone else considers such a host to have an
> implied MX record with priority level zero.  Fortunately, I'm pretty
> sure all MTA authors assume that, even Prof. Bernstein.

Doesn't 2821 or 2 explicitly say it these days?

> > Clearly.  He was wondering, I think, how many irrational anti-spammers
> > were out there, clearly a non-empty set.
> 
> Oh yeah.

:-)

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

                2004 Stanley Cup Champion Tampa Bay Lightning