On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 03:56:14PM +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Bill Manning wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> > so what is supposed to happen when I remove all "A" RR's from
> > my zones?
>
> I'm not sure if we are talking about the same issue. For SMTP
> as it used to be since RFC 821 clients trying to find a server
> accepting mail for [EMAIL PROTECTED] look for y.example MX records,
> and if they got something they locate corresponding servers
> "by name" (A or AAAA), all details as explained in 2821bis.
>
> If they got nothing with their MX query RFC (2)821 and 2821bis
> said that the client should try y.example directly "by name",
> it could be an ordinary host with an SMTP server at port 25.
right.
example.com. soa (
stuff
)
ns foo.
ns bar.
;
mailhost aaaa fe80::21a:92ff:fe99:2ab1
is what i am using today.
the RFC's have the right idea.
> For various reasons mentioned in this thread this "fallback"
> or "implicit MX rule" isn't a good idea today, and some folks
> like to get rid of it for AAAA. RFC 2821 didn't say that
> this is also supposed to work for IPv6, and therefore 2821bis
> isn't forced to stick to it.
its not a bad idea either, just that some folks
are feeling grumpy.
RFC 2821 didn't say - and the presumption should be
that since IPv6 is just like IPv4... then the IPv4
methods shoudl work.
> For the domain with only one SMTP host also almost nothing is
> new, it is only encouraged (by the proposed note) to publish
> this name in an MX record.
what is being proposed is -FORCING- people to use
an RR type they may not want to use.
> You are not supposed to remove any A records from your zones.
> You are not supposed to do anything at all, because you have
> MX records as it should be... :-)
er, NO. SMTP has no dependence on what may or may
not exist in the DNS. Forcing SMTP to depend on DNS
is a huge mistake. And yes Virginia, I plan on removing
A rr's from my zones (eventually)
>
> Frank
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> IETF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
--bill
Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and
certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise).
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
