On 2016-07-18 04:45, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote:
We have certainly encountered some that do not support a '.' value.
DNS Made Easy's web UI is like this. I've used their secondary services
for years, but recently I've been looking at their primary services and
it's a sloppy mess of things that a
But that's also part of the logic for specifying the precedence as "0"
(zero). Even if there are others, they will never be considered.
That's not how MX priority works. Lacking a special case to recognize the
dot name, if there are lower priority MXes, it'll try them when it can't
contact th
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:33 PM, John Levine wrote:
> >> I wasn’t sure if there is a specific
> >> reason the preference is called out in the RFC.
>
> We wanted something consistent.
>
> >0 is the lowest preference MX and will therefore be tried first,
> hopefully overriding any other higher pref
Michael,
On Jul 15, 2016, at 2:06 PM, Michael Peddemors wrote:
> Any one suggest a medium to encourage that amongst registrars?
http://icannregistrars.org
http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/rrsg
Regards,
-drc
(ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself)
signature.asc
Des
Wouldn't it be nice if registrars (the one that provide default DNS when
you purchase) could be encouraged to add that TXT or SPF record as
default on all new domain purchases?
This would also encourage adoption of it as a whole, would like to
assume that real email admin's would update the re
>In answer to the original question, I know that Gmam special cases
>MX 0 . to fail the message immediately.
Stupid laptop keyboard. That's Gmail doing the special cases.
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/ma
In article
you write:
>Doesn't receive emails, sure. Doesn't send emails, I look for the "SPF
>lockdown." Lots of places publish this as an SPF record: "v=spf1 -all"
Yes, that's what the RFC suggests.
In answer to the original question, I know that Gmam special cases
MX 0 . to fail the message
>> That is what I was thinking. I wasn’t sure if there is a specific
>> reason the preference is called out in the RFC.
We wanted something consistent.
>0 is the lowest preference MX and will therefore be tried first, hopefully
>overriding any other higher preference MXs that may exist.
The
> On Jul 14, 2016, at 7:00 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> wrote:
>
> On 15/07/16, 6:33 AM, "mailop on behalf of Mark Foster"
> wrote:
>
>> Why would any other preference MX exist for a domain not intended to
>> be used for email?
>
> They shouldn’t. Normally. But what if they do?
Then delive
On 15/07/16, 6:33 AM, "mailop on behalf of Mark Foster"
wrote:
> Why would any other preference MX exist for a domain not intended to
> be used for email?
They shouldn’t. Normally. But what if they do?
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
http
On 15/07/2016 12:55 p.m., Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 15/07/16, 4:19 AM, "mailop on behalf of Brian Godiksen"
wrote:
That is what I was thinking. I wasn’t sure if there is a specific
reason the preference is called out in the RFC.
0 is the lowest preference MX and will therefore
On 15/07/16, 4:19 AM, "mailop on behalf of Brian Godiksen"
wrote:
> That is what I was thinking. I wasn’t sure if there is a specific
> reason the preference is called out in the RFC.
0 is the lowest preference MX and will therefore be tried first, hopefully
overriding any other higher
That is what I was thinking. I wasn’t sure if there is a specific reason the
preference is called out in the RFC.
Thanks,
Brian
> On Jul 14, 2016, at 6:34 PM, Mark Foster wrote:
>
> Surely if the MX record is declared as a . then the preference is irrelevant?
>
>
> On 15/07/2016 8:38 a.m.
Surely if the MX record is declared as a . then the preference is
irrelevant?
On 15/07/2016 8:38 a.m., Brian Godiksen wrote:
I noticed inconsistencies in how domains are publishing null MX records. In
RFC7505 it states these records should be published with a preference number 0.
I am seei
Doesn't receive emails, sure. Doesn't send emails, I look for the "SPF
lockdown." Lots of places publish this as an SPF record: "v=spf1 -all"
And I've been recommending people publish that if they have no plan to
send email using that domain. It's an easy DNS test to confirm that a
given domain do
indeed...
I think the null MX makes sense when there is an A or on the same
domain. It stops the mail server to try to deliver and wait 4+ days to
bounce the message.
Other MX that are always fun to use:
MX 10 localhost
;)
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> > On Ju
> On Jul 14, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>
> I kind of see the null MX as a way to say that this domain does not send
> emails.
Eh... only indirectly, implicitly and only kinda.
0-mx-dot states that the domain does not receive email for any address. It
doesn't say anything directl
I kind of see the null MX as a way to say that this domain does not send
emails. So it is more a test on the receiving side than on the sending side.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> > On Jul 14, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Brian Godiksen
> wrote:
> >
> > I noticed inconsistencies
> On Jul 14, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Brian Godiksen wrote:
>
> I noticed inconsistencies in how domains are publishing null MX records. In
> RFC7505 it states these records should be published with a preference number
> 0. I am seeing a variety of preferences specified though.
>
> Example:
>
> ;
I noticed inconsistencies in how domains are publishing null MX records. In
RFC7505 it states these records should be published with a preference number 0.
I am seeing a variety of preferences specified though.
Example:
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;hotmai.com.IN MX
;; ANSWE
20 matches
Mail list logo
