Is MX record check correct? |
Post Reply
|
| Author | |
Michael
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Topic: Is MX record check correct?Posted: 03 February 2006 at 5:59am |
|
Hi, RFC2821 contains this passage: If no MX records are found, but an A RR is found, the A RR is treated as if it was associated with an implicit MX RR, with a preference of 0, pointing to that host. As far as I can tell the SpamfilterISP MX record check does not accept A records but only MX records which then would be in violation of the SMTP specs. Is this correct and are you planning to change this? |
|
![]() |
|
LogSat
Admin Group
Joined: 25 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4106 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 February 2006 at 8:14am |
|
Michael,
RFC2821: "consolidates, updates and clarifies, but doesn't add new or change existing functionality" to other RFCs, in particular RFC 974 which determines how email is delivered. This RFC974 was created in 1986, long before spam became a problem. This said, the MX filter does just that, checks to see if a sender has a valid MX record in their DNS. If it's not there, the email will be rejected. SpamFilter allows you to enable or disable this filter, leaving admins a choice of how much filtering to perform. Please note that all legitimate domains "should" have valid MX records. If an administrator chooses not to have an MX record, he must understand that even though it is not mandatory, nowdays many antispam applications will reject emails from their domain. Also, technically that section of the RFC spcifies how email should be *sent* (to the MX, if no MX present, to the A RR). However SpamFilter is *not* sending email, it is simply receiving email. Upon receipt, it checks the remote sender's domain for the MX records. There is no RFC that defines this, or that says that a *receiver* must/must not perform these checks. So we're actually not in violation of 2821 in regards to this... |
|
![]() |
|
Desperado
Senior Member
Joined: 27 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1143 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 February 2006 at 8:17am |
|
Michael, You may want to read the following thread: http://www.logsat.com/spamfilter/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID= 4665&KW=rfc+MX |
|
|
The Desperado
Dan Seligmann. Work: http://www.mags.net Personal: http://www.desperado.com |
|
![]() |
|
Vicer
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 February 2006 at 1:38pm |
|
I tend to agree with Desperado and Logsat. The RFC is outdated In my opinion in this day of spam no company no matter how small or how large, whether a mailing list is legitimate or not, in fact no matter what the reason. 1: Proper Reverse DNS for the mail server I have people send mail from government agencies to my spamfilter that do not have either an mx record or reverse dns. Simply put, that's bunk. Rejected. I do not accept phone calls from hidden phone numbers or postage mail without a return address so I am not going to accept e-mail from an unknown source either otherwise how is the sender accountable?
|
|
![]() |
|
Post Reply
|
|
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.211 seconds.


Topic Options
Post Options
Thanks(0)


