[Mimedefang] ANNOUCEMENT: Net::validMX v2.2.0 now available.

[David F. Skoll]

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.

Regards,

David.