Is Hotmail in the habit of ignoring MX records?
Mark Andrews
marka at isc.org
Fri Jul 27 01:34:10 UTC 2012
In message <A9A5C64B-831D-42BF-8A38-56CC3B9BAF48 at kapu.net>, Michael J Wise writ
es:
>
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 1:35 AM, Lou Katz wrote:
>
> > The domain is cookephoto.com
>
> Why does mail.metron.com have MX records?
Why do you care? There is nothing wrong with having explict MX
records and they generally take up less room in a DNS cache then
the negative response does especially if it is DNSSEC signed.
> And they're different.
Again why do you care?
> $ host cookephoto.com
> cookephoto.com has address 192.160.193.89
> cookephoto.com mail is handled by 10 mail.metron.com.
> cookephoto.com mail is handled by 12 mail2.metron.com.
> cookephoto.com mail is handled by 15 mail.katz.com.
>
> $ host mail.metron.com
> mail.metron.com has address 192.160.193.14
> mail.metron.com mail is handled by 10 mail.metron.com.
> mail.metron.com mail is handled by 20 mail.katz.com.
>
> $ host mail.katz.com
> mail.katz.com has address 192.160.193.14
>
> $ host mail2.metron.com
> mail2.metron.com has address 209.204.189.91
>
> $ host plaid.metron.com
> plaid.metron.com has address 192.160.193.135
>
> Normally, in my experience, the actual mail server doesn't have MX
> records as such, but=85.
> Just seems 0dd.
All address record (A and AAAAA) have MX records. Some may be
implicit but as far as SMTP is concerned they all have MX records.
> Also, you say =85
>
> > At the time of the transaction, nothing special was happening here,
> ...
>
> Was anything strange happening with any of the DNS records for any of
> these domains in the past two days?
>
> Aloha,
> Michael.
> --
> "Please have your Internet License
> and Usenet Registration handy..."
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
More information about the NANOG
mailing list