indeed...

I think the null MX makes sense when there is an A or AAAA on the same
domain. It stops the mail server to try to deliver and wait 4+ days to
bounce the message.

Other MX that are always fun to use:

MX 10 localhost

;)

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com> wrote:

>
> > On Jul 14, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Franck Martin <fmar...@linkedin.com> wrote:
> >
> > I kind of see the null MX as a way to say that this domain does not send
> emails.
>
> Eh... only indirectly, implicitly and only kinda.
>
> 0-mx-dot states that the domain does not receive email for any address. It
> doesn't say anything directly about whether mail is sent using email
> addresses in that domain.
>
> If you believe that you must be able to deliver an asynchronous bounce for
> any message you receive, and you receive mail with an 821.From that you
> know is undeliverable then it's reasonable to treat that mail with a lot of
> suspicion.
>
> But 0-mx-dot is not an explicit statement by the domain owner of "mail is
> not sent using this domain". That'd be an SPF -all, or something DMARCy.
>
> Cheers,
>   Steve
>
> > So it is more a test on the receiving side than on the sending side.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 14, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Brian Godiksen <br...@socketlabs.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I noticed inconsistencies in how domains are publishing null MX
> records.  In RFC7505 it states these records should be published with a
> preference number 0.  I am seeing a variety of preferences specified though.
> > >
> > > Example:
> > >
> > > ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> > > ;hotmai.com.                  IN      MX
> > >
> > > ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> > > hotmai.com.           2530    IN      MX      10 .
> > >
> > > Is anyone ignoring the preference number in their implementation?
> >
> > More generally, is anyone special-casing this rather than just treating
> it as an idiomatic way of creating an email address that immediately fails
> to deliver?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >   Steve
> > _______________________________________________
> > mailop mailing list
> > mailop@mailop.org
> > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mailop mailing list
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Reply via email to