On 5/9/2013 9:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > 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
Nice etiquette... >> 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 You missed the point entirely. I think this is because you are predisposed to argue with anyone who disagrees with you, even when they are correct and you are incorrect. Hence the preface in my previous reply. >>> 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 Again you miss the point. The reason for a 4xx here is so the mail gets queued and can simply be flushed after the DNS or other error is corrected. Thus the message isn't needlessly returned to the sender. Most of such errors are found and corrected pretty quickly. Using a 4xx in this case keeps things more transparent to users, whether mine, yours, or the guy at the remote SMTP site. > 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 No, Reindl, this is called courtesy to fellow network operators. The only bad attitude here is yours. You display it both here and on the Dovecot list regularly. Being brash and arrogant is one thing. Most people dislike that but tolerate it. But the constant cursing and berating anyone who disagrees with you crosses the line. Frankly I'm surprised that Wietse and Victor have let you get away with this behavior for so long. I guess they're leaving it up to members to add you to local kill files... -- Stan
