On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 12:09:15PM +0200, Magnus Bäck wrote: > 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.
Yes, I am employing a number of other measures too. But I would like to try out seeing what effect rejecting mail without a MX RR wil have. Can I do that in postfix, possibly by specifying something in the file for check_sender_mx_access . I did google for it. And thanks for your quick answers (also to Ole). Best regards keld
