In message <a9a5c64b-831d-42bf-8a38-56cc3b9ba...@kapu.net>, Michael J Wise writ es: > > On Jul 26, 2012, at 1:35 AM, Lou Katz wrote: > > > The domain is cookephoto.com > > Why does mail.metron.com have MX records?
Why do you care? There is nothing wrong with having explict MX records and they generally take up less room in a DNS cache then the negative response does especially if it is DNSSEC signed. > And they're different. Again why do you care? > $ host cookephoto.com > cookephoto.com has address 192.160.193.89 > cookephoto.com mail is handled by 10 mail.metron.com. > cookephoto.com mail is handled by 12 mail2.metron.com. > cookephoto.com mail is handled by 15 mail.katz.com. > > $ host mail.metron.com > mail.metron.com has address 192.160.193.14 > mail.metron.com mail is handled by 10 mail.metron.com. > mail.metron.com mail is handled by 20 mail.katz.com. > > $ host mail.katz.com > mail.katz.com has address 192.160.193.14 > > $ host mail2.metron.com > mail2.metron.com has address 209.204.189.91 > > $ host plaid.metron.com > plaid.metron.com has address 192.160.193.135 > > Normally, in my experience, the actual mail server doesn't have MX > records as such, but=85. > Just seems 0dd. All address record (A and AAAAA) have MX records. Some may be implicit but as far as SMTP is concerned they all have MX records. > Also, you say =85 > > > At the time of the transaction, nothing special was happening here, > ... > > Was anything strange happening with any of the DNS records for any of > these domains in the past two days? > > Aloha, > Michael. > -- > "Please have your Internet License > and Usenet Registration handy..." -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
