On Sunday, July 12, 2009 at 11:52 CEST,
Keld Jørn Simonsen <k...@dkuug.dk> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 11:41:51AM +0200, Magnus Bäck wrote:
>
> > Don't do that. MX records are not required, and you will reject
> > legitimate email. If the MX record isn't present, an MTA should
> > use the A record.
>
> Yes it is understood that the RFCs do not require MX for mail.
> But how many legitimate mails do not have MX?
I don't know. How many illegitimate messages do not have an MX record
for the sender address? It may be reasonable to break the rules, but
the gain of doing so must outweight the costs. I don't think that's
the case here. There simply are more exact methods of fighting spam
than blocking messages whose sender address lack an MX record.
--
Magnus Bäck
mag...@dsek.lth.se
