[98671] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [policy] When Tech Meets Policy...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Simon Lyall)
Wed Aug 15 06:00:03 2007
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:43:28 +1200 (NZST)
From: Simon Lyall <simon@darkmere.gen.nz>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <7d6a0cac0708141830p7d33f323vd4fbf25c2acb976d@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Al Iverson wrote:
> On 8/14/07, Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org> wrote:
>
> > This comment was added as a follow-on note. Sorry for not being clear.
> >
> > Accepting messages from a domain lacking MX records might be risky
> > due to the high rate of domain turnovers. Within a few weeks, more
> > than the number of existing domains will have been added and deleted
> > by then. Spammers take advantage of this flux. Unfortunately SMTP
> > server discovery via A records is permitted and should be
> > deprecated.
>
> Should be (perhaps) but clearly isn't. When you run it through a
> standards body and/or obtain broad acceptance; great! Until then, it's
> pipe dreaming.
Okay I wasn't reading this thread but the last few posts have gone a
little over the edge.
I don't know where this whole "Must have MX record to send email" thing
came from but I would have thought domains that don't want to send email
can easily mark this fact with a simple SPF record:
v=spf1 -all
Trying to overload the MX record is pointless when there is a simple
method that the domain owners, registrars can choose to use or not.
--
Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/
"To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
