31 ms·
> Why didn’t the DMARC spec say that a domain is “not present” if it lacks MX records? MX implies a domain can receive email, you don't need it to send email.
by jeroenhd 4mo ago
> Why didn’t the DMARC spec say that a domain is “not present” if it lacks MX records?
MX implies a domain can receive email, you don't need it to send email. A setup where company.example sends email from companymailings.example but sets a reply-to for support@company.example is perfectly valid (even if it's stupid and confusing). Plus there's that weird legacy behaviour of mail servers delivering to port 25 to the IP in the A record if MX records are missing.
- amluto 4mo ago> A setup where company.example sends email from companymailings.example but sets a reply-to for support@company.example is perfectly valid So shouldn’t this be done explicitly by setting a policy at _dmarc.companymailings.example instead of implicitly by setting at otherwise entirely useless record (of type A? some unused TXT variant?) at companymailings.example?
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4mo agoNo. MX tells a sender where the mail goes. DMARC allows the recipient to verify the adress in the From header. Neither has anything to do with the fact whether a server sends emails or not.
- sealedmailuk 4mo ago[dead]