> > As for "MX 0 ." the sooner this gets defined as no SMTP service for this > > domain the better. The cost for changing this is only every going to > > increase. > > It may take years before a significant portion of SMTP servers recognize > root domains as meaning no service.
that would never happen. most smtp initiators including embedded ones would never be upgraded. they'll just make ". IN A" queries trying to chase down this MX's target. a standard of this kind is a recipe for permanent increase of worthless queries at the root servers. > An alternative would be to require MX records to assert SMTP service. A > positive assertion will not impose additional burdens on root servers, > but will necessitate explicit DNS provisions to exchange SMTP messages. > With 19 out of 20 messages being abusive and largely from compromised > systems, requiring a domain to assert their intent to exchange public > SMTP messages will encourage adoption without burdening root servers with > strategies sure to generate extraneous traffic beyond their control. this also worries me since it makes good mail less deliverable as the cost of stopping blowback, and it won't slow bad mail down at all. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
