[policy] When Tech Meets Policy...

Simon Lyall simon at darkmere.gen.nz
Wed Aug 15 09:43:28 UTC 2007


On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Al Iverson wrote:
> On 8/14/07, Douglas Otis <dotis at mail-abuse.org> wrote:
>
> > This comment was added as a follow-on note.  Sorry for not being clear.
> >
> > Accepting messages from a domain lacking MX records might be risky
> > due to the high rate of domain turnovers.  Within a few weeks, more
> > than the number of existing domains will have been added and deleted
> > by then.  Spammers take advantage of this flux.  Unfortunately SMTP
> > server discovery via A records is permitted and should be
> > deprecated.
>
> Should be (perhaps) but clearly isn't. When you run it through a
> standards body and/or obtain broad acceptance; great! Until then, it's
> pipe dreaming.

Okay I wasn't reading this thread but the last few posts have gone a
little over the edge.

I don't know where this whole "Must have MX record to send email" thing
came from but I would have thought domains that don't want to send email
can easily mark this fact with a simple SPF record:

v=spf1 -all

Trying to overload the MX record is pointless when there is a simple
method that the domain owners, registrars can choose to use or not.

-- 
Simon Lyall  |  Very Busy  |  Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/
"To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.




More information about the NANOG mailing list