On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:13:14PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > It was described in a now-expired ietf document > > draft-delany-nullmx-00.txt, still available at: > > How about > > MX 1 nomail.example.com. > > ? Since this does not resolve (nomail.example.com is not a valid > domain, and never will be), mail being sent their should result in > immediate rejection, no?
A better suggestion was given in one of the mailing list threads, to use something like: domain.tld. MX 0 _not_valid_for_email.domain.tld. (or a similar special string instead of "_not_valid_for_email"). Since this would come from the nameservers for domain.tld. itself, any software trying to resolve the domain would only hit those same nameservers again, and nothing else, since it was already cached. However, unfortunately, there was no generally agreed upon new standard chosen. Another current practice that I see a lot, used by domains that are for sale (as indicated by the nameserver records), is to use the non- existing name "dev.null." as the only MX record (see for example: "fdfw.com", a random example from our logs). That has the same disadvantage of hitting the root nameservers as ".", though. -- Jan-Pieter Cornet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> !! Disc lamer: The addressee of this email is not the intended recipient. !! !! This is only a test of the echelon and data retention systems. Please !! !! archive this message indefinitely to allow verification of the logs. !! _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
