[Mimedefang] DNS and MX records

[John Rudd]

On May 10, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Jason Bertoch wrote:

> 	In my case, it is a problem.  Outbound mail sits in my queue for 
> several
> days trying to connect to a server that isn't responding to 
> connections on port
> 25.  Whether it's a typo, or just plain a bad address, my users are 
> only
> notified that delivery has been delayed.  They still believe delivery 
> is
> possible until the bounce shows up.
> 	It wastes resources attempting connections to a server that will never
> answer, and all because of the old implicit MX rule.  I try to help 
> everyone out
> on my domains that don't use e-mail by implementing an MX that will 
> ensure an
> immediate bounce.  I believe that all users would benefit from 
> dropping the
> implicit MX rule from the RFC or if admins used a similar workaround 
> as the one
> above.

I would think it would be a better plan to avoid using software that 
doesn't conform to RFCs by not obeying the implicit MX rule.  And not 
catering to remote servers that don't obey it either.