On Sunday, December 5, 2021 9:35:15 PM EST John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
> >> For your #2 you seem to be saying that if I send no-reply transactional
> >> mail, my DNS would look like this:
> >>
> >> notifiy.bigcorp.com. IN MX 0 . /* we don't receive replies /*
>
Scot raises a valid concern, which calls for a counterproposal, not an end
to discussion.I can propose one, but I wonder what the group thinks.
Building on other comments, the strict needs this additional logic:
DMARC Policy and the NP test
--
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>> For your #2 you seem to be saying that if I send no-reply transactional
>> mail, my DNS would look like this:
>>
>> notifiy.bigcorp.com. IN MX 0 . /* we don't receive replies /*
>>IN A 0.0.0.0 /* make the domain exist */
>>
On December 5, 2021 9:54:42 PM UTC, Douglas Foster
wrote:
>It is a relief to finally have this topic open for discussion. The issues
>go deeper than null MX.
>
>The goal is to domain names that the domain owner never uses for
>RFC5321.From addresses. No direct test exists, so there are two
It is a relief to finally have this topic open for discussion. The issues
go deeper than null MX.
The goal is to domain names that the domain owner never uses for
RFC5321.From addresses. No direct test exists, so there are two candidate
substitutes:
- (Relaxed:) A name is rejected if it does
On 2021-12-05 20:40, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
How about if it has a null MX and a DMARC record or DKIM keys?
Remember
that those records are at different names than the MX. ...
There's two ways we could go at this question:
1. A domain that, except for the
On 2021-12-05 20:04, John Levine wrote:
This sounds like local policy again. Personally, I am not crazy about
getting mail that I can't reply to, but my mailbox is full of mail from
my bank and stores from which I have ordered telling me that I can't
reply
to their messages.
banks or
On 2021-12-05 05:13, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Should we modify the definition of non-existent domains so that a
domain that
only has an RFC 7505 null mx record is still considered non-existent?
hope you will not change rules to ignore null MX ?
why is it even a question ?
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 2:40:16 PM EST John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
> >> How about if it has a null MX and a DMARC record or DKIM keys? Remember
> >> that those records are at different names than the MX. ...
> >
> >There's two ways we could go at this
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>> How about if it has a null MX and a DMARC record or DKIM keys? Remember
>> that those records are at different names than the MX. ...
>There's two ways we could go at this question:
>
>1. A domain that, except for the null mx, would fit the criteria for
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 2:04:20 PM EST John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
> >Should we modify the definition of non-existent domains so that a domain
> >that only has an RFC 7505 null mx record is still considered non-existent?
> How about if it has a null MX and a
It appears that Scott Kitterman said:
>Should we modify the definition of non-existent domains so that a domain that
>only has an RFC 7505 null mx record is still considered non-existent?
How about if it has a null MX and a DMARC record or DKIM keys? Remember that
those
records are at
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 11:14 PM Scott Kitterman
wrote:
> Should we modify the definition of non-existent domains so that a domain
> that
> only has an RFC 7505 null mx record is still considered non-existent?
>
> I'll propose text if it's agreed this would be a useful change?
>
> Scott K
>
>
Should we modify the definition of non-existent domains so that a domain that
only has an RFC 7505 null mx record is still considered non-existent?
I'll propose text if it's agreed this would be a useful change?
Scott K
___
dmarc mailing list
14 matches
Mail list logo
