- Previous message: Jason Bertoch: "Re: sink.arpa question"
- In reply to: Jason Bertoch: "Re: sink.arpa question"
- Next in thread: Jason Bertoch: "Re: sink.arpa question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Tony Finch (no email)
Date: Fri Dec 18 2009 - 12:45:14 EST
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 <> http://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD.
|
|
|