On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 5:56 PM Grant Taylor <gtaylor= 40tnetconsulting....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> On 4/5/21 3:46 PM, Todd Herr wrote: > > Several jobs ago, when I was in position to set anti-spam policy for a > > mid-sized US-based cable ISP, if the RFC5321.From or RFC5322.From domain > > lacked both an MX record and an A/AAAA record, that was enough for me to > > reject the mail on the grounds that I was unwilling to accept anything > > to which the recipient could not reply. > > I'm surprised at requiring an /MX/ record. I still see email routed to > A / AAAA records for the domain when there isn't an MX record for said > domain. > > I wouldn't give your statement another thought if it was "an MX record > or an A record or an AAAA record". But /requiring/ an /MX/ record is a > toe stubber for me. > > > It appears my phrasing was confusing, and for that I apologize. I did not require an MX record, per se; the requirement was that there be either an MX record or, failing that, an A/AAAA record. Either one was sufficient, but if neither existed, then the mail was rejected. -- *Todd Herr* | Sr. Technical Program Manager *e:* todd.h...@valimail.com *m:* 703.220.4153 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
