From: (no name) (no email)
Date: Thu Nov 01 2007 - 11:32:12 EDT
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>>> The MTA should try the MX-es in the correct order, regardless of whether
>>>> the Additional section contains the high priority MX information or not.
>>>> If that takes a second look-up specifically for the high priority MX, so
>>>> be it.
>>>
>>> You might want to explain what you're trying to accomplish with your multiple
>>> MX records. This list is ridiculously long, and the TTLs are far to high for
>>> an experiment. It's hard to look at the results of this query and jump to the
>>> conclusion that Postfix is at fault:
>>
>> You're jumping to conclusions.
>>
>> 1) That's not the domain that's having problems.
>> 2) It's MX-es are not running postfix (they are running courier)
>> 3) The MX-es are there for a reason. Google "nolisting".
>> 4) Lots of MX-es are no excuse whatsoever for not re-trying them in the
>> correct order, whether their IPs get reported back in the additional
>> section or not.
>
> I have one suggestion.
>
> Point Postfix to a DNS server that doesn't truncate replies, and
> show evidence that Postfix behaves incorrectly. If so, we will
> investigate and may even ask you to turn on debug logging.
The DNS is _only_ truncating the additional section. It is NOT truncating
the main section, regardless of how big it is.
> Postfix doesn't cut corners; it takes the MX list and then does
> separate A lookups for each of them. If something is cutting corners
> here it is more likely that DNS server that is truncating your
> replies, and that does who knows what with the partial information.
> I am, however, not interested in adding code to Postfix to work
> around mis-behaving DNS servers.
Agreed, this would be bad. If Postfix does separate lookups then DNS is
not the problem, as the main section is always returned correctly.
Gordan
|
|
|