It appears that Slavko via mailop <li...@slavino.sk> said: >>Interpretation aside, the fact they are (mis?)understood to be the same thing >>is a clear conflation. It may be language based, it may >not, but please stop splitting this specific hair. > >I am confused now as in RFC 7505 sect. 4.2 one can read: > > Null MX is primarily intended for domains that do not send > or receive any mail... > >And: > > ...mail systems SHOULD NOT publish a null MX record for domains > that they use in RFC5321.MailFrom or RFC5322.From addresses. > >I understand that RFC as: nullMX's primary purpose is about >not receiving, but as side effect it can result as not sending too. > >Is my understanding wrong?
Sort of. As lots of other people have pointed out, while it is OK to have a domain that only recieves mail, it is quite antisocial to send mail but not accept responses. But receive-only domains are a corner case. By far the main use of Null MX is for domains that do no mail at all, either way. R's, John _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
