Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-nullmx-05.txt> (A NULL MX Resource Record for Domains that Accept No Mail) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 7/18/2014 4:50 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I must be missing something here.   You're saying you want me to set
> up a null MX for all my hosts to prevent someone else's MTA having
> undeliverable mail sitting in the queue for a week?   Why would I
> care about your MTA's queue?   Why would this issue even be on my
> radar?

Well, some operators actually like being good neighbors, especially when
the effort needed is tiny and one-time.

But even if they don't care about that, they might prefer not to have
those guys banging on their servers for days until the message times out.


> The second example you give, stopping mail being delivered to the web
> server, is actually served better by setting up a proper MX that
> directs the mail to the right server.   Does an HTTP server really
> care about the occasional SYN to port 25?

Ahhh.  You haven't heard of the scaling effects of botnets.

So the answer is yes, since it might not be 'occasional'.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]