Re: [exim] routing to seemingly un-routeable address

On 9/5/05 1:42 PM, "Jim Pazarena" <exim@???> wrote:

> /dev/rob0 wrote:
>
>>> On Monday 2005-September-05 15:02, Jim Pazarena wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I have an issue cropping up with a domain name of:
>>>>>
>>>>> sk.sympatico.ca
>>>>>
>>>>> a user claims that it is a valid domain name for a friend of his, but
>>>>> my mail server claims it to be un-routeable,
>>>>>
>>>
>>> How so? What does it say?
>>>
>>>>> and indeed a "dig" doesn't produce much info.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> It has SOA, and 2 NS records. No A nor MX.
>>>
>>>>> what happens with names such as these on mail servers which actually
>>>>> _can_ route to it? how do they do it?
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps it is a case of differing views for their clients. I'm unsure
>>> what you are asking here. Do not confuse routing with resolution.
>>>
>
> I posted this question in a "bind" user group. Would appreciate an exim
> response.
>
> the question then, is,
>
> SHOULD a mail transport agent accept an email addressed to this domain?
> with no "A" or "MX"
> how would it determine how to route it ?

One probably shouldn't accept such a thing from another MTA (or spam engine,
etc...ie, "the world).

Given that the widely used MUAs make such an utter hash of reporting errors
that happen during message submission, it's likely better to accept from
clients and bounce. Unless you know that in your situation all or most
users use MUAs that produce cogent errors when submission fails.

At least 80% of our "I can't get my mail" support calls/messages are really
caused by the MUA failing to send a message with a bogus address.

--John