On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 10:43:04PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 12:26:37PM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote: > > Please read section 5 of rfc 2821. > > > > "If no MX records are found, but an A RR is found, the A RR is > > treated as if it was associated with an implicit MX RR, with a > > preference of 0, pointing to that host." > > > > Thus Paul's setup not only works, it _should_ work as it is compliant. > > OK, I was fairly sure I was right about this. When in doubt, consult the documentation :-) (I admit I am more in tune with reading RFCs than I used to; an artifact of my most recent job). > > Any MTA which cannot deliver mail to Paul's system due to the lack of > > an MX record is broken. > > And it's so rare I don't think I've ever encountered such a broken > MTA. Well, with the exception of TMDA, but TMDA is broken for reasons > other than this. Hmm, I'm curious: did you run TMDA locally, or are you saying someone else running TMDA couldn't email you? (I'm talking about the TMDA found at http://tmda.net/ ) Really, I don't see how TMDA could be broken WRT your MX record or lack thereof since TMDA isn't an MTA at all. -- Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:email@example.com We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.
Description: PGP signature