On 27 Feb 2010, at 13:49, John R. Levine wrote: there is an MX. Where did you get the idea that not having an MX >>> offers protection from spambots? >> >> That's interesting, but not what I described. > > Well, OK. Let me rephrase my question: why do you believe that removing the IETF's MX record will > > a) decrease the amount of spam it receives? > > b) not damage its legitimate mail flow? Because, on inspection, both now and in the past, that is what it seems to do, for my personal domains. The difference in spam, and the apparent lack of lost mail, leads me to the conclusion that this small hack is worth the keeping, for now. Of course, I am more concerned about the lost mail, and I suspect that the IETF is more exposed to that possibility. In that case, it would be unwise. But it works for me, and given that it's in no way improper or non-standard, I don't see why it shouldn't for the IETF. > Based on my experience and that of other people, neither is true. O.K. I must be very lucky indeed. Cheers, Sabahattin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf