Am 24.07.2013 10:07, schrieb Simon B: > On 24 Jul 2013 09:44, "Reindl Harald" wrote: >> Am 24.07.2013 09:21, schrieb Stan Hoeppner: >> > Reindl, keep this kind of crap off the list. It benefits nobody here >> > and simply wastes resources. Either send it off list, or better yet, >> > don't sent it at all. You got yourself booted from Postfix-users for >> > this type of behavior >> >> no - i got removed because *of you* and your message below >> which resulted in undersatndable anger > > Really Reindl, I find myself unable to support you in any of the salient > points you make because of your attitude > and anger management issues. If the calm, rational email below resulted in > understandable anger then you have > issues best not dealt with in a public forum.
ah and "Normally I'd avoid arguing with your Reindl as it simply clutters the list" is a good attitude followed by technical nonsense? >> When did you last come across a domain configured strictly for fallback >> to A? While RFC may require it, and some used it in the 70s and 80s, no >> receivers rely on fallback to A in 2013 is wrong, i came across such domains 2011 and not in the 70s and 80s period > Anyone versed sufficiently in SMTP to know of the existence of fallback > to A isn't going to rely on it - They'll have proper MX records is nice, but in the real world there are *way to much* not versed admins proven daily on several mailings-lists where you face admins never should have connected a server to the internet as well as you do not need a MX record at all if your incoming mailserver is on the A-Record the MX-Record is for the cases where on http://your-domain/ is a website while the same machine is not your incoming mailserver
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
