IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt> (A NULL MX Resource Record for Domains that Accept No Mail) to Proposed Standard

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 18 July 2014 04:06 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A99D1A0415 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 21:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.137
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 10pdVTIkGUbE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 21:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C09351A03E6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 21:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 42047 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2014 04:06:46 -0000
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 18 Jul 2014 04:06:46 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=d2b9.53c89d55.k1407; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=aqGpc3oHFzjcfFK8VL53o596pqDbVUSgMlyXzOVZvbY=; b=dTJQ3WLab9nAJrVxQLTQWb0M09S9u0/7GoeHTVSZ3gs572lr55xWZpNeIXeqMCM4ue0xSZk2NzGXlKB64TcfrsE4sInjz3jNHpEOpunG0W5nKdxMzTKgt4y6Rt05XRtTUxfeGrE6ZvVmvKzkJD6q50IFo2JSVV/H+ZPrqLZs3yBJamh+GoSh5tosX0bV/XJLXmtWu9AzWyqpEKnnt3vDCdtJBSy8C4Z87NElHnWDb/H5EjZlI4peN3CFUS+Ws08i
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=d2b9.53c89d55.k1407; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=aqGpc3oHFzjcfFK8VL53o596pqDbVUSgMlyXzOVZvbY=; b=pSoSv54yAqFB+Z7iHTskEBS45ZUoex6uqP3weCx6gnotrV3D4AvhAJ/BorzY2wX741pCMHL9wMT/XLTyLr2BcQyCUI2kenexa/UMR/es3gIgAj2EKUKJg7a3LZXcUhw2tBeoP8vvxuhji4V/YHqCrfXQA3QPSVs3zxZg8ilGnZp/LQn3lmWyBQbuleZL3OQxab5+oJXjH7GtgKU80CuudOc/RtuCRm2nwQv1SPwOWfTJ5oRE2Tu4+9z3y9AU79HA
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 04:06:23 -0000
Message-ID: <20140718040623.53944.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt> (A NULL MX Resource Record for Domains that Accept No Mail) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <20140718032611.7B87E1A7B838@rock.dv.isc.org>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SOqTmT1WLmIUzn9g_di_kftBMtk
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 04:06:50 -0000

In article <20140718032611.7B87E1A7B838@rock.dv.isc.org> you write:
>
>There are lots of machines which do not have the SMTP port configured
>yet have A or AAAA records resulting in a implicit MX record and
>week+ long no delivery notifications.

Right.  That's exactly, precisely, the problem that null MX is
intended to address.

>The alternative to this is to remove the implicit MX record
>construction from SMTP and make the presence of MX records mandatory
>for SMTP.  I'm sure there will be many more complaints about doing
>that than adding a explicit no service record.

That would be fine with me, but I hear it's 30 years too late, even for IPv6.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email