Re: [Exim] @mx_any and 127.0.0.1

On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 01:30:36PM -0700, Fred Viles wrote:

> I don't think it's necessary for the extra load you unnecessarily put
> on someone else's server to "bring it down" before it can be
> considered abusive.
>
> | > I would think
> | > @ MX 0 name.that.has.no.a.record
> | > would be better practice.
>
> No, it would cause no extra root queries. The MX target is in-zone,
> so the querying server already has the delegation records.

I still don't believe there is any valid reason for all this MX
foolishness.

Simply removing ALL the MX records completely, and then blocking
inbound SMTP on port 25 of the underlying A record completely
solves the problem.

If the only goal here is to prevent connections to the underlying A
record, fine, then block them.

Sure, the email that is trying to be delivered may end up being
remotely queued instead of getting an instant fail, but that remote
mail server violated defacto MX processing rules anyway by ignoring
the fact there were no MX records.

IMO, there is *never* any valid reason to put bogus MX records
into the public DNS system.

--
Dean Brooks
dean@???