Re: [Asrg] MX, was Adding a spam button to MUAs

Ian Eiloart <> Thu, 11 February 2010 13:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 751C23A7350 for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:04:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.514
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.514 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q2MR1DUHExfy for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:04:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B3D3A6F41 for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:04:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]:60451) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <>) id KXOHQD-00014X-FK for; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:06:13 +0000
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:05:27 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <>
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01V/unUMBcFbWYaPuywyHKcBrDvXPIqrohzGY=;
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Sussex: true
X-Sussex-transport: remote_smtp
Subject: Re: [Asrg] MX, was Adding a spam button to MUAs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:04:27 -0000

--On 10 February 2010 10:34:50 -0800 SM <> wrote:

> Hi Ian,
> At 04:00 09-02-10, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>> Do you think a political campaign that resulted in - say - all UK
>> educational establishments, or all domains (or both)
>> implementing such a rule would change their minds? What if Google
>> also implemented the rule.
> I gather that these fine UK educational establishments have read the
> specifications and the discussions leading to it.

I understand the spec. I've not read the discussions leading to it, but if 
there's a GOOD reason to assume every AAAA record (without a corresponding 
MX record) points to a mail host, then I'd like to hear it.

> BTW, are you suggesting that Internet Standards should be determined by
> what Google does?
> Regards,
> -sm

What I'm suggesting is that things currently permitted by standards might 
not be permitted by local policy. I don't like the situation that a DNS 
lookup can't tell me whether an email domain really is supposed to be 

We get lots of mail "from" domains with "A" records and no MX records. It 
turns out that many of these addresses are undeliverable, and life would be 
much easier if that doesn't happen with AAAA records in future. I'm 
inclined to adopt a local policy that requires an MX record in the absence 
of an A record.

I cite Google as a large provider that can influence best practice. I'm NOT 
suggesting their behaviour should set standards. But, if certain practices 
are required to get mail delivered to Google, then they're likely to be 
widely adopted.

Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see