Phillip Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 4/05/2004, at 11:10 PM, Julian Mehnle wrote: > >> Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> >>> [ ... ] >>> >>> and if nobody enforces it all hell breaks loose. >> >> You mean, hell breaks loose in about the same way as when some people >> have >> one of their MX records point to an unreachable A record? > > Yeah, they don't get their mail.
If one MX record points to an unreachable A record and a second MX record points to a reachable A record, then people _do_ get their mail, as long as the mail sending agent follows the procedure outlined in RFC 974 that I mentioned in an earlier message. As stated in that standards document, one of the purposes of the preference numbers in the MX records is to take care of this exact case. >>> I still see no valid reason to put an ip address as an MX. >> >> I don't, either. But I *do* see a valid reasong not to abort the whole >> delivery process just because one MX record is broken in some special >> way. > > Then patch it. There will soon be a patch, as I mentioned. -- Lloyd Zusman [EMAIL PROTECTED] God bless you. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
