[120294] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: DNS question, null MX records
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Senie)
Tue Dec 15 14:20:19 2009
From: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0912151907330.4176@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:19:28 -0500
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Cc: "'nanog@nanog.org'" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I disagree. There was considerable concern with a misuse of a mechanism =
and its effect on various systems. That, from discussion on the IETF =
mailing list I was on when it was discussed there. There was no rough =
consensus that I could see.
On Dec 15, 2009, at 2:09 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Eric J. Esslinger:
>>=20
>>> I found a reference to a null MX proposal, constructed so:
>>> example.com IN MX 0 .
>>=20
>> I think this is quite controversal.
>=20
> My impression from discussions on various IETF lists is that most =
people
> think it is a good idea, it is already reasonably widely implemented, =
but
> no-one has the time and persistence to push a spec through to =
publication.
>=20
> Tony.
> --=20
> f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
> GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY =
SHOWERS.
> MODERATE OR GOOD.
