> I think it would be great to have this document use ?no-mail.invalid.? as the > domain name rather > than ?.? in the MX record i.e. > foo.bar.example MX 0 no-mail.invalid. > > But this is just a question of preference and installed base.
The aspirations of this document were far more modest than people seem to think. The original intent was to merely document a relatively standard operating procedure that mail admins routinely deploying. Up to that point it was trade-craft that sometimes surprised and confused new mail admins. We wanted to reduce that surprise and confusion. Nothing more. There was no original intent to try and change the practice nor to pass judgment on it. It was deemed that that would be covered by some future activity if warranted. Maybe "NULLMX considered harmful" if enough IETF wonks were keen on an admonition or driving an alternative. It's been nearly ten years since the original draft was posted, and it has travelled just about the full length of the IETF digestive tract. I can readily understand why the original goal may no longer be apparent. Importantly, in the intervening decade there has been zero evidence of sufficient energy to pursue alternatives, yet alone pursue them to completion. And of course the practice has become far more entrenched since then. I encourage folk to consider the doc in that context if they can. Mark. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
