Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Status notice/warning too strict for having Null MX without any A/AAAA #748

Closed
WKobes opened this issue Sep 9, 2022 · 3 comments · Fixed by #869
Closed

Status notice/warning too strict for having Null MX without any A/AAAA #748

WKobes opened this issue Sep 9, 2022 · 3 comments · Fixed by #869
Assignees
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@WKobes
Copy link
Collaborator

WKobes commented Sep 9, 2022

Discussed this morning with @baknu

Per #468 the situation Null MX without A/AAAA record present is given warning/notice score. The reasoning is that a Null MX is not necessary, since there is no A/AAAA record to which an email would otherwise be transmitted.

However, this warning is too strict, since there is no downside to having a Null MX. One could argue that having a Null MX in place at all times could be useful, such that the domain remains protected even if an A/AAAA record is added at a later date.

This is also in line with the M3AAWG policy for parked domains

Proposal: Change scoring for Null MX without A/AAAA from notice to info (Verdict D1 in #468)

@gthess
Copy link
Collaborator

gthess commented Sep 9, 2022

I understand the point of view but IMHO it is about DNS hygiene. NULL MX is not needed when A/AAAA and MX are not there.
For internet.nl both notice and info do not penalize the result but notice could make people notice because of the extra icon attention.

Not to sound snarky but for the sake of discussion the last remark could be rewritten as:

One could argue that having a Null MX in place at all times could be useful risky, such that the domain remains protected does not receive email even if an A/AAAA MX record is added at a later date. :)

@WKobes
Copy link
Collaborator Author

WKobes commented Sep 9, 2022

Fully agree with the last statement, I guess it depends on the perspective (security vs usability) which case is worse. I assume M3AAWG bases their policy on the security perspective since it specifically entails parked domain names.

With DNS hygiene, do you mean the minimization of the number of DNS records defined for the maintainability of the zone? Or are there any other technical downsides to having such record that I am not aware of?

@gthess
Copy link
Collaborator

gthess commented Sep 9, 2022

With DNS hygiene, do you mean the minimization of the number of DNS records defined for the maintainability of the zone?

Yes. I don't see a technical downside atm except for the risk of email operation as I stated above.

@baknu baknu added this to the v1.8 milestone Oct 21, 2022
@baknu baknu modified the milestones: v1.8, v1.7 Oct 21, 2022
@mxsasha mxsasha removed the duplicate label Nov 4, 2022
mxsasha added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2023

Verified

This commit was signed with the committer’s verified signature.
mxsasha Sasha Romijn
Ref 4417bd3
@mxsasha mxsasha linked a pull request Feb 13, 2023 that will close this issue
mxsasha added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 14, 2023

Verified

This commit was created on github.com and signed with GitHub’s verified signature. The key has expired.
Ref 4417bd3
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants