[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: urgent Mail Server



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:nnorman@incanus.net
  We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.

Attachment: pgpxIDh8FGpfI.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: