Am 09.05.2013 16:44, schrieb Stan Hoeppner: > Normally I'd avoid arguing with your Reindl as it simply > clutters the list
keep this bullshit for you > On 5/9/2013 7:26 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> if you have a A-record for "example.com" and you incoming >> mail-server is on this IP you do not need any MX record >> and postfix will happily use the A-record to deliver mail > > When did you last come across a domain configured strictly for fallback > to A? While RFC may require it NOT SO LONG AGO a few years ago i was so naive and stupid to implement a DNS check in the verify-function of my php-framework to prevent import / subscribe to newsletter lists with undeliverable domains i had it to learn the hard way that RFC's are not only for fun >> another story is if there is a MX-Record but the listed >> hostname does not resolve and at least for me the intention >> of "if the MX does not exist" is not clear enough if it means >> >> a) no MX record for the domain >> b) a MX record with a non-resloving hostname >> >> reject b) would be fine > > Only if the response is 4xx. People fat finger records all the time that's their problem after fixing this the next mails would go through nobody expect that if he make mistakes in his DNS configs and is too lazy to verify what he configured that others configure their servers to help him with this attitude you would needto reject all with 4xx because someone could have make a mistake - this is a bad attitude in context of e-mail
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
