DNS question, null MX records

Tony Finch dot at dotat.at
Thu Dec 17 12:54:39 UTC 2009


On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> To avoid server access and hitting roots:
>
> host-1.example.com. IN A 192.0.2.0
> host-10.example.com. IN A 192.0.2.9
>
> example.com. 	IN MX 0 host-1.example.com.
> example.com. 	IN MX 90 host-10.example.com.

This is not very good from the point of view of a legitimate but mistaken
sender, because their messages will be queued and retried. The advantage
of pointing MX records at nonexistent hosts is most MTAs (and all common
ones) will stop trying to deliver the message immediately. It is perhaps
more polite to use a nonexistent name that you control, but that doesn't
allow the source MTA to skip further DNS lookups, unlike the nullmx or
sink.arpa ideas.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot at dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS.
MODERATE OR GOOD.




More information about the NANOG mailing list