IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

SM <sm@resistor.net> Wed, 26 March 2008 08:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87A3028C514; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:52:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SGeIdecsXUV6; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A458028C4B5; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6FA28C314 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:52:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lmjEenpOvZtq for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC48428C4B5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.3.Beta0/8.14.3.Beta0) with ESMTP id m2Q8nwGv010318 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1206521415; x=1206607815; bh=Rd255XtEmwFi0CTqizDg/jHfdQzp9xj8Fhr1 pUuAGL0=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=1hQ+H2QJXjbccN6XyvCxzC06oj koqItomV9iydjBgdljJa9ewsRNDnSo0sn3Nfn4PSaFHST5wV/SjyDX6A7nIbXqO6Gqq n/N2XjcEGBJtWjVrfp5ThN43F/gAXp9f/mHDruU45ypAGxXh95I5wPDlgSQL3mbmBzl PwYFAGNrOxk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=fQP/+JVWFJriYZz59h2Pmnn8QTWd2/s88XUu3sunhopHr6WBTB4uBdpckyj21IueI I/7EEjFhyZQlJTD2R1Gv46wzXQLKihRYnszI18XhSkq9QZiqFdJeJq05LWMSJzMRpu3 P3keM/0xPFmk74LvCxuzq3F5wFUl2pmQg0dfdLw=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20080326013730.029aeb50@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:48:05 -0700
To: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
In-Reply-To: <200803260757.m2Q7vilr090960@drugs.dv.isc.org>
References: <Your message of "Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:10:38 PDT." <6.2.5.6.2.20080325212302.02a7ac70@resistor.net> <200803260757.m2Q7vilr090960@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

At 00:57 26-03-2008, Mark Andrews wrote:
>         Which is not documented in any RFC despite being a good idea.
>
>         It is easy to turn "MX 0 ." into "This domain doesn't support
>         email" as "." is not confusable with a hostname.  There is no
>         reason to look up addresses records for "."

There was an I-D, draft-delany-nullmx-00, which didn't make it to RFC status.

>         Which could just be a misconfiguration.   You still have to
>         look up addresses for "dev.null".

Yes.  People still do it.

> > If the implicit MX rule is depreciated for IPv6, the above won't be needed.
>
>         It's still needed to prevent the A lookup.

It would be needed until IPv6 takes over.

Regards,
-sm 

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email