On Thursday, November 27, 2014 03:43:56 AM Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 03:40:21AM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > You must have been napping upthread.
>
> If still puzzled:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-10#appendix-A.2
>
> https://tools.i
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 03:40:21AM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> You must have been napping upthread.
If still puzzled:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-10#appendix-A.2
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klensin-smtp-521code-02#section-4
--
Viktor.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 09:19:41PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I'm surprised you chose to introduce as a default an undefined
> code point. RFC 5321 (and its predecessors) have pretty strong
> language against use of new reply codes and the current IETF draft
> specifies use of 550 in most ca
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 09:00:14 PM Wietse Venema wrote:
> Postfix snapshot 2.12-20141126 changes the error messages for domains
> with a NULL MX record from "invalid DNS reply" to "domain does not
> receive mail".
>
> This also introduces a new SMTP server configuration parameter
> nullmx
