Kirk A Wolff writes:
Sam,
I agree that this particular ISP isn't my problem, however I wonder if
courier tries more than the first three MX records even if they have
problems such as pointing to hostnames that don't resolve to A records or
having an IP address in them.
MX records that resolve to
From: "Sam Varshavchik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kirk A Wolff writes:
> (brokendomain.com). He says that his ISP wants to keep the first few MX
> records broken, and that the problem is with MY mailserver.
How exactly does his ISP's decision to keep broken DNS become your
problem?
Sam,
I ag
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Gerardo Gregory wrote:
> P.S. Gerardo, I apologize for the last email.
>
> Dont sweat it. No offense taken.
>
> --
>
> At least you did not email me off list with profane slander as another
> individual who is responding to the thread did...
I know what you are all thinking.
Gerardo Gregory wrote:
P.S. Gerardo, I apologize for the last email.
Dont sweat it. No offense taken.
--
At least you did not email me off list with profane slander as another
individual who is responding to the thread did...
Well, technically, calling someone an asshole in private email doesn
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [courier-users] Re: RFC 1035 error V.S. First two MX entries
BAD for domain
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Kirk A Wolff wrote:
From: "Gerardo Gregory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well if he would post the domain in question then I woul
Mitch (WebCob) wrote:
Should courier waste cycles confirming the complete DNS structure of a
domain? no I don't think so...
If "the complete DNS structure of a domain" means walking down the full
list of MX records (or, if there are none, synthesized MX records) and
trying each one that has a nam
> -Original Message-
> > How exactly does his ISP's decision to keep broken DNS become
> > your problem?
>
> Simple -- he'd make the case that you should only refuse to
> deliver mail if
> there are no correct MX records, not if there are any broken ones.
>
I share your pain here with th
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Roger
> B.A. Klorese
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 8:02 PM
> To: Mitch (WebCob)
> Cc: 'Sam Varshavchik'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [courier-users] Re
n" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [courier-users] Re: RFC 1035 error V.S. First two MX entries
BAD for domain
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Kirk A Wolff wrote:
>
> > From: "Gerardo Gregory" <[EMAIL PR
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Kirk A Wolff wrote:
> From: "Gerardo Gregory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Well if he would post the domain in question then I would consider your
> > point. But all I have read today is using "brokendomain.com" as an
> example.
>
> If you are refering to me as 'he', I will answe
>>You question the term broken; I have explained several times that the
>>term broken for the first two entries implies that they do not have
>>corresponding 'A' records.
No associated A record? Explain to me how is one to resolve the
hostname in the MX field if we cannot resolve it to an IP.
From: "Gerardo Gregory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well if he would post the domain in question then I would consider your
> point. But all I have read today is using "brokendomain.com" as an
example.
If you are refering to me as 'he', I will answer your question. I do not
wish to cause the admin of
Roger B.A. Klorese writes:
What you propose would be like making an auto bumper 1/4" high and
saying that if everyone followed the spec there would be no non-bumper
collisions.
But there are standards for auto bumper safety, and every car manufacturer
is required to meet them. Meeting the bump
> How exactly does his ISP's decision to keep broken DNS become
> your problem?
Simple -- he'd make the case that you should only refuse to deliver mail if
there are no correct MX records, not if there are any broken ones.
---
The SF.Net emai
Well if he would post the domain in question then I would consider your
point. But all I have read today is using "brokendomain.com" as an example.
How do you know what MX record is working or not? Whats the domain name?
Let me do some queries using nslookup, then I might be more open to
dis
Mitch (WebCob) wrote:
It took me a while Roger, but I've come to agree (with the occasional client
inspired nagging doubt). A solid product that works and follows the rules vs.
one that accepts anything remotely appropriate thrown at it and muddles through.
The problem here, is not courier, but tha
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Roger
> B.A. Klorese
> Sent: January 21, 2004 4:21 PM
> To: 'Sam Varshavchik'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [courier-users] Re: RFC 1035 error V.S. First two MX
>
> Explain me your ideology here...it is either a CORRECT one or NOT.
It doesn't matter if any of them are incorrect/broken. It only matters if
*all* of them are. Just as you shouldn't refuse to access foo.bar.com
because an A record for zap.bar.com is malformed, you shouldn't refuse to
try the
Simple -- he'd make the case that you should only refuse to deliver mail >if there are no correct MX records, not if there are any broken ones.
So explain to me the difference between a "broken" MX record and an
incorrect one? Their is none...is there?
Explain me your ideology here...it is eith
> And I'll make a case that broken DNS records are a sign of an
> incompetently-administered ISP, and that it's been
> historically shown that
> incompetently-administered ISPs typically have other
> problems, such as open
> relays and hacked proxies, and zombies.
Great -- now we have *softwa
Roger B.A. Klorese writes:
How exactly does his ISP's decision to keep broken DNS become
your problem?
Simple -- he'd make the case that you should only refuse to deliver mail if
there are no correct MX records, not if there are any broken ones.
And I'll make a case that broken DNS records are a
Kirk A Wolff writes:
that exists today. I have lightly reviewed the code in the file
courier/courier/rfc1035/rfc1035mxlist.c. It seems to me that what is
happening is only the first three MX entries are used. Please correct me on
this!
There's nothing in rfc1035mxlist.c that discards fourth, an
Kirk A Wolff writes:
(brokendomain.com). He says that his ISP wants to keep the first few MX
records broken, and that the problem is with MY mailserver.
How exactly does his ISP's decision to keep broken DNS become your problem?
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
23 matches
Mail list logo
