Ned Freed wrote: > If the consensus is that better interoperability can be had > by banning bare AAAA records that's perfectly fine with me.
FWIW, I'd like that... >> Clarity can be established and interoperability _improved_ >> by limiting discovery to just A and MX records. Perhaps a >> note might be included that at some point in the future MX >> records may become required. > Again, I have no problem with this approach if that's what > the consensus is. ...and that, too. >> Adding AAAA and all future address records to a list of >> SMTP discovery records fails miserably at taking advantage >> of the MX record replacing the function of the generic A >> record. > Another point in favor of not allowing bare AAAA records > for mail routing. [...] >> The only valid solution would be to indicate that AAAA >> records as a discovery mechanism may not be supported and >> should not be used for this purpose. Use MX records instead. > Which is perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. The question > is whether there's a consensus to resolve the ambiguity in > this fashion. Checking about 63 articles on the SMTP list mentioning "AAAA", some from the early '90s, they're about TLDs, CNAME, MX, SPF, and what else. I found no message clearly saying "but I want no MX for my AAAA". I vaguely recall that somebody mentioned an implementation doing this, but that is not the same as "I insist on an AAAA fallback", and IIRC it was only one poster. Frank _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
