> > > Ned Freed wrote: > >> Indeed, if you asked > >> a random sampling of those groups --remembering that there are a > >> huge number of SMTP servers in the world, only a tiny fraction > >> of which are professional operations and with an even smaller > >> fraction being large-scale, carefully-managed production ones, > >> you might discover that many of them had forgotten that there > >> was such a thing as an MX record and how to set it up. > > > > And even if they know MX records exist they may not be able to use them. So > me > > DNS provisioning arrangements allow users to set up MX records but there ar > e > > others that do not. > > > This observation moves the proposed AAAA-only mode into one of high risk. > Rather than the benefit of reducing complexity, it becomes the danger of > threatening interoperability. > > Let's note that the proposal is a change from a model that has worked solidly > > for 20 years and has not been a source of problems. While the proposal is fo > r a > mode that is appealing, it is not necessary. > > Methinks it is therefore time to respectfully retire the proposal. > > d/ Anyone running a SMTP server on a truly dynamic address is asking for trouble. This is independent of whether there is a MX record or not. Invariably there will be SMTP connection attempts to the old address which are intercepted. Matching MX target against the greeting message would also address this. Also getting rid of implict MX records would "deal" with all those ISP's that insist that they need to re-write NXDOMAIN responses. Mark > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______________________________________________ > IETF mailing list > IETF@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf