Viktor Dukhovni:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:04:25PM +0100, A. Schulze wrote:
> > I stumbled about null MX again because I would like to setup some domains
> > with "MX 0 ." but postfix ( 2.11 and 2.12 ) still reply with "Malformed DNS
> > reply"
> > How do you see the probability the draft will be an RFC till postfix-2.12
> > (Q1/2015) and postfix could handle that correct?
Until NULLMX is official, the current Postfix implementation is
correct. According to RFCs that ARE official, "IN MX 0 ." does not
contain a valid hostname.
> I'll leave that question to Wietse. My take is that we should
> recognize "IN MX 0 ." as a permanent "mail not accepted" indication.
This will require some ugly special-case coding, because allowing
an empty hostname everywhere would be extremely dangerous.
Wietse
