On 2008-12-27, Sahil Tandon <sa...@tandon.net> wrote: > jk...@kinz.org wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 01:33:47PM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote: >> > jkinz mentioned the connecting "system"; that is to say, the connecting >> > client. That client needn't be the MX for the domain from which email >> > is arriving. >> >> Negative, "system" -- that is to say "domain" in this case. > > system != domain in technical discourse, so no. > >> Consider yourself surprised.. > > Consider yourself corrected. > >> email systems (domains) that don't have mx's will find themselves having >> problems despite the fact that its not an rfc requirement. > > Truism. That is an entirely different statement than saying (as you did > in your original post) that having an MX record is a de facto requirement > for sending mail.
It _is_ a de-facto requirement if you want to be able to reliably send e-mail. If you're happy with 10% being rejected, then you don't need an MX record. -- Grant
