Tech Question for a Marshy/Joust 'net GeekType

[CarZee]

Apologies for this - everyone else will be lost in a moment, but I need an answer...

Right.. my webhost provider delivers via Rackspace.com.

They don't use an MX record, they just specify an A record for the target 'fffnh.com'. For most mail systems this works okay - if an A record corresponding to the target domain exists, an MX record is not required.

However, it seems that some systems (Content Technologies' Mailsweeper) will only work with an MX record for the destination domain and hence when you try to send an email to CarZee @ fffnh.com it just loops then dies.

So, in which RFC is it specified how the interaction between SMTP and DNS works? If I'm to kick Content Tech. in the gonads I need to do it with a rolled up RFC in my hand.

It's worth mentioning that as PH is also hosted by rackspace, the situation is the same and there's no MX record for the domain pistonheads.com.

[incorrigible]

Just have a quick look out of the window

That's the "Real world" that is

Well it helps me

[CarZee]

incorrigible said: Just have a quick look out of the window

That's the "Real world" that is

well some of us have to be able to manage the technologies that you de-clued types rely upon to purvey your dubious witticisms, dear boy..

[bigtone]

Carzee, I use SmartChoice in Blackpool too for my M rebuild site, and they've given me mail.tvr-3000m.co.uk.

If I use this:

http://amail.co.uk/cgi-bin/atrace.pl?ip1=www.fffnh.com&who=YES

It doesn't give a reference of an MX record anywhere, but it's still pointing to the RackSpace NameServers. I'd give SmartChoice a call and explain the situation - you may need to change nameservers to their details for it to work.

HTH, Tony

[pies]

MEL SAID THIS IN ANOTHER THREAD
"They don't use an MX record, they just specify an A record for the target 'fffnh.com'. For most mail systems this works okay - if an A record corresponding to the target domain exists, an MX record is not required.

However, it seems that some systems (Content Technologies' Mailsweeper) will only work with an MX record for the destination domain and hence when you try to send an email to CarZee @ fffnh.com it just loops then dies.

So, in which RFC is it specified how the interaction between SMTP and DNS works? If I'm to kick Content Tech. in the gonads I need to do it with a rolled up RFC in my hand.

It's worth mentioning that as PH is also hosted by rackspace, the situation is the same and there's no MX record for the domain pistonheads.com.

Now that should confuse most of you "


WTF IS GOING ON!!!!!

[CarZee]

nah - it's not their fault.. it's down to rackspace.com who their servers are hosted by..

Besides, the solution works with all but the odd one awkward mailer..

I've spoken to them about it before - I had it all out (ahem.. as it were) with them when the current status quo was implemented.

No point in fixing what is correctly configured for the sake of poxy Content Technologies and their piece of shite product which does not adhere to the required RFCs.. you'll be unsurprised to hear that MS Exchange also suffers from this problem sometimes..

[pbrettle]

Apologies for this - everyone else will be lost in a moment, but I need an answer...

Right.. my webhost provider delivers via Rackspace.com.

They don't use an MX record, they just specify an A record for the target 'fffnh.com'. For most mail systems this works okay - if an A record corresponding to the target domain exists, an MX record is not required.

However, it seems that some systems (Content Technologies' Mailsweeper) will only work with an MX record for the destination domain and hence when you try to send an email to CarZee @ fffnh.com it just loops then dies.

So, in which RFC is it specified how the interaction between SMTP and DNS works? If I'm to kick Content Tech. in the gonads I need to do it with a rolled up RFC in my hand.

It's worth mentioning that as PH is also hosted by rackspace, the situation is the same and there's no MX record for the domain pistonheads.com.

Mmm, interesting - products like MailSweeper are a little too stringent when checking against RFC's and as a result cause many a problem. Suprised that it doesnt do A node resolution correctly and insists on an MX record - however not totally suprised. You probably know of the multitude of problems that it kicks up anyway.

Anyway, had a trawl of the IETF and you are right - there doesnt seem to be a specific case that SMTP mail must be delivered to a host via the MX resolution! In fact all of the information seems to point to (though not directly referenced or clarified) the ability to do both MX and A node resolutions - which ever is the easier / quicker / complete etc.

Funny thing is though that I have sent email to PH (Ted) before and it didnt bounce. The company I work for uses both MailSweeper and Exchange so if PH doesnt have an MX record then I think this is strange. Maybe this is because the offending mailserver has been configured in the "arse" mode and this means that it is doing the extra checks.... It is an option (though can remember exactly where at the moment - but will think about it in a minute. You can, and should, point Mailsweeper at your ISP's smart mail host (DNS and SMTP relay host) rather than try and do direct resolutions itself - this is an option on installation. Getting it to use the ISP is the best, most efficient way of delivering the email and hey, you pay them money so use the service..... Getting Mailsweeper to do the resolutions is expensive on time and memory - and obviously causes issues with non MX recorded DNS resolutions....

Could that be an explanation? Is it just one mailserver? Any more details?

Cheers,

Paul

[CarZee]

you may be right Paul - TBH it's stopping Mrs Zee emailing me from her work, so it's probably no bad thing

[Marshy]

I would reply, having seen my name in the subject, but Paul's beaten me to it. Not much to add really. Nor am I surprised that MimeSweeper is being a bit of an arse.

Lazy of your domain hosting people not to have bothered with the MX record, mind.

Edit: Net geek type? I'll have you know that

(a) I don't have a beard
(b) I don't own sandals
(c) I like fast cars
(d) I have a life
(e) I have a sex life
(f) Not on my own, either

All of these points rule me firmly out of the net geek category I think. Bah.

>> Edited by Marshy on Thursday 16th January 17:45

[pbrettle]

Marshy said: I
Edit: Net geek type? I'll have you know that

....

All of these points rule me firmly out of the net geek category I think. Bah.

Yeah but we all spend far too much time at / doing work and playing around on the internet - PH included.... I am afraid we are a little geeky...

Cheers,

Paul