nanog mailing list archives
Re: sink.arpa question
From: Tony Finch <dot () dotat at>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:45:14 +0000
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jason Bertoch wrote:
Isn't the fundamental problem that SMTP can fall back to an implicit MX? None of these solutions will stop spammers from skipping MX records and using direct-to-host connections.
This has nothing to do with spam.
Shouldn't we just consider dropping the implicit MX back door as opposed to getting creative with MX records that spammers will surely note and avoid anyway?
It's impossible to make that kind of incompatible change with an installed base of billions of users. It's already impossible to eliminate the AAAA fallback and keep the A fallback. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot () dotat at> http://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD.
Current thread:
- sink.arpa question Ted Hardie (Dec 17)
- Re: sink.arpa question Joe Abley (Dec 17)
- Re: sink.arpa question Doug Barton (Dec 17)
- Re: sink.arpa question bmanning (Dec 17)
- Re: sink.arpa question Doug Barton (Dec 17)
- Re: sink.arpa question bmanning (Dec 17)
- Re: sink.arpa question Jason Bertoch (Dec 18)
- Re: sink.arpa question Tony Finch (Dec 18)
- Re: sink.arpa question Jason Bertoch (Dec 18)
- Re: sink.arpa question Ted Hardie (Dec 18)
- Re: sink.arpa question Jason Bertoch (Dec 18)
- Re: sink.arpa question Mark Andrews (Dec 18)
- Re: sink.arpa question Tony Finch (Dec 18)
- Re: sink.arpa question Tony Finch (Dec 20)
- Re: sink.arpa question Joe Greco (Dec 20)
- Re: sink.arpa question Pete Barnwell (Dec 20)
- Re: sink.arpa question Tony Finch (Dec 21)
- Re: sink.arpa question Joe Abley (Dec 17)