On 7/11/23 12:35 PM, Michael Orlitzky via mailop wrote:
Seriously though, it's not a "fallback" in any pejorative sense. SMTP predates much of DNS, including MX records. It's a fundamental part of the specification.
I largely agree, especially from a historic point of view.
However, I don't see any mention of a-record fallback in RFC 5321. -- I didn't chase any updates. -- I do see four occurances of "fall" in the document, three of which are fall( )back and all three have to do with something other than MX records vs a-records.
As such, I'd question the veracity of current SMTP needing to support a-record fallback.
Email, SMTP, is an evolving and changing standard. It's important to know what both current expectations are and I think it behooves you to have an idea what previous expectations were.
Grant. . . . _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
