Tomas Korbar:
> Hi Guys,
> is there a plan to release this in one of the experimental releases?
> I am ok with providing some help if needed.
> I don't want to be annoying, I just don't want this to be forgotten.
You are not fogotten.
This will be in the experimental release before it appears in the
next stable release. I have been a bit short on time recently, and
like the rest of Postfix this has to be done right.
Wietse
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 5:58 PM Viktor Dukhovni <vik...@dukhovni.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 11:46:09AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> > > > And of course we can always rely on Microsoft's
> > > > "mail.protection.outlook.com"
> > > > nameservers to exhibit suboptimal behaviour. Probing for SRV records
> > > > there (though unlikely to happen in practice) yields an unexpected
> > > > NOTIMP, and SERVFAIL from recursive resolvers:
> > >
> > > See, I was justified in my reluctance to do opportunistic SRV lookups
> > > by default. Thanks for doing my homework.
> > >
> > > > Such issues are otherwise rare, but the proof of concept does point out
> > > > that brokenness is possible.
> > >
> > > I'm a tad surprised, because MS seems to a prominent user of this.
> >
> > My example is artificial, the autoconfig suffixes are recipient domains,
> > not MX host domains, so autoconfig lookups for "mail.protection.outlook.com"
> > wouldn't normally happen, that's where the customer MX host names live,
> > but it is not itself a recipient domain.
> >
> > DNS for "mail.protection.outlook.com" is handled by particularly
> > retarded loabalancers, which don't do EDNS(0), barely handle A/AAAA
> > lookups and return NOTIMP in response to queries for most other record
> > types...
> >
> > --
> > Viktor.
> >
>
>
