Dears, Great, I found the official portal has change to "no DNS MX and no DNS address record" which is better than before. Many thanks.
Regards, King 2014-02-14 22:12 GMT+08:00 Noel Jones <[email protected]>: > On 2/14/2014 7:57 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > Noel Jones: > >> On 2/13/2014 11:29 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > >>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 01:17:14PM +0800, King Cao wrote: > >>> > >>>> *reject_unknown_recipient_domain*Reject the request when Postfix is > not > >>>> final destination for the recipient domain, and the RCPT TO domain > has 1) *no > >>>> DNS A or MX record* or 2) ....... > >>> > >>> English is not symbolic logic, but the intent is clear: > >>> > >>> 1. no (MX or A record) > >>> > >>> rather than: > >>> > >>> 2. no MX or no A record. > >>> > >>> By De Morgan's laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws) > >>> the first is also: > >>> > >>> 3. no MX and no A record. > >>> > >>> interpretation "2" seems too implausible to warrant correcting the > >>> document, but if others feel it is ambiguous and someone sends a > >>> patch for proto/postconf.proto that improves the clarity of the > >>> text, it should be cheap enough to adopt it. > >> > >> s/or/nor/ > > > > Did you mean: neither A nor MX record. > > > > Clarity wins with "no MX and no address record." > > > > Wietse > > > > Yes, I was thinking neither/nor, but "no MX and no address record." > is better. > We've obviously spent too much time discussing this already. > > > -- Noel Jones >
