> > > In an IETF that believes the potential recursion of URNs and
> > > NAPTR records is reasonable, it is really hard for me to get
> > > excited about that one possible extra lookup. YMMD, of course.
>
> I can't get excited about this either.
>
> > Doug's issue, which sparked off this latest debate, would
> > be addressed by codifying "MX 0 .". This would allow hosts
> > to say that do not accept email and any email (MAIL FROM)
> > claiming to come from such a domain to be dropped in the
> > SMTP session.
>
> OTOH, I think standardizing this convention makes all sorts of sense, but
> not, of course, in 2821bis.
Why not in 2821bis? Is 2821bis really that time critical?
> Ned
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
