Might be better to have an MX record that points to localhost, because if you have an A record but no MX, people will just try to connect to the A record.
Though I've never tried it for domains that lack an MX DNS entry, I do think overall that DMARC (and SPF) are both good things to configure for domains that don't send email. I've blogged about it here: https://www.spamresource.com/2018/06/locking-down-your-unused-domains.html Cheers, Al On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:52 AM Zachary Aab via dmarc-discuss <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: > > The sub/domain should be protected by the DMARC record even without an MX > record, I can't find anything in the RFC to say otherwise and some senders > (mostly marketing, ime) use 5322.from domains with no MX records and a > "Reply-to:" header with a working domain. > > >Could the syntax error caused by the receiving domain may not have the txt > >record to authorize the reports reception? > It certainly could, of course we can't check up on that without the domain. > The answer will probably depend on what is actually throwing the syntax > error, is it a DMARC-checking tool on the internet, a receiver's DMARC > filter, or your DNS provider? > > It looks like your last clause (rua=) is missing the semicolon at the end, > receivers will care about that to varying degrees but it might be causing the > error you see, again depending on what's giving the error. > > My best, > Zack Aab > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:37 PM T Nguyen via dmarc-discuss > <dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org> wrote: >> >> Could the syntax error caused by the receiving domain may not have the txt >> record to authorize the reports reception? >> >> >> >> From: T Nguyen <t.nguye...@outlook.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 9:30 PM >> To: dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org >> Subject: Help >> >> >> >> Appreciate any insight to the scenario below: >> >> >> >> Can non-smtp ( no mx record ) domain example.com be protected by dmarc? I >> inherited the below dmarc record for this example.com with spf record as “ >> v=spf1 -all “. The result was a dmarc syntax error. >> >> >> >> v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; >> rua=mailto:dmarc-repo...@not-example.com,mailto:repo...@example-not.com >> >> >> >> If dmarc cannot be implemented then what is the best way to protect this >> non-smtp domain example.com from being spoofed by mal-intention senders that >> can fool naïve users? Although with spf record “ v=spf1 -all “alone should >> work for dmarc record to set policy reject all email using this non-email >> domain example.com >> >> >> >> Thank you in advance, >> >> Best, >> >> tn >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc-discuss mailing list >> dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org >> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss >> >> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well >> terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html) > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc-discuss mailing list > dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org > http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss > > NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms > (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html) -- al iverson // 312-725-0130 // miami http://www.aliverson.com http://www.spamresource.com _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
