In article <alpine.lsu.2.00.1407231447050.13...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> you
write:
>Kevin Darcy <k...@chrysler.com> wrote:
>
>> Potentially dumb question: what does this "magic meaning" MX target (".")
>> offer, that a target resolving to a null address (0.0.0.0 and/or ::0) does
>> not? No protocol or code changes required.
>
>A target of "." causes an immediate permanent failure, whereas a tagret
>that resolves to 0.0.0.0 is likely to cause retries and eventual timeouts.
In practice, A records of 0.0.0.0 cause mail loops, and I have the logs
to show it. It's a really bad idea.
The version of null MX in the draft has been in wide use since 2006.
If anyone wants to do something different, the proposal needs to
explain why it is so much better than the existing practice that all
of the existing implementations that already work would be willing to
change their code.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
