[Mimedefang] ANNOUCEMENT: Net::validMX v2.2.0 now available.
David F. Skoll
dfs at roaringpenguin.com
Fri Jun 2 07:09:37 EDT 2006
Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Also 192.168.X.X is fine if the MX records also contains internet
> accessible addresses. So:
> munged.com IN MX 25 [legit ip]
> munged.com IN MX 10 [privatized ip]
I disagree. If you publish a 192.168.x.x record as a public MX, you
have no idea where your mail will go. What happens if on Customer X's
network, someone sets up a malicious server at 192.168.x.x that
intercepts all outgoing mail and replaces it with inflammatory mail?
IMO, any domain that publishes *any* bogus MX record should be rejected.
More information about the MIMEDefang