Slightly OT - MX RR Santity Check requested...

[Mark Andrews]

> > 	When one is talking about MX records the lowest preference
> > 	MX record is the one with the lowest value in the preference
> > 	field. 
> 
> The lowest preferred MX RR is that with the highest integer representing it. 

	Which is the highest preference MX.
  
> More preferred MX hosts have lower integers.

	Which are lower preference MX.

	The RFC's talk about "highest/lowest preference".  The
	entire DNS community talks about "highest/lowest preference"
	and has done for the last 20 years.

	We use the terms "highest preference" and "lowest preference"
	to avoid confusion.  Sometime it really does pay to learn
	the technical language of the subject you are talking about.

	The DNS has a lot of specific terms which once you know then
	make communication clearer.

	Mark

> ... Kev
> 
> On Wednesday 28 March 2007 10:21 pm, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > Our LOWEST pref MX RR IS REACHABLE.
> >
> > 	When one is talking about MX records the lowest preference
> > 	MX record is the one with the lowest value in the preference
> > 	field.  The lowest preference MX(s) are tried first.  This
> > 	is the only way to avoid confusion.
> >
> > 		"lowest preference" is most preferred.
> > 		"higest preference" is least preferred.
> >
> > 	The lowest preference MX is not reachable.
> >
> > 	"pref" is ambigious.
> >
> > > It's the high pref that's not.
> > >
> > > IN      MX      5      firewalled.mailserver.com.
> > > IN      MX      10    reachable.mailserver.com.
> > >
> > > Pref 10 is reachable.  Pref 5 is only reachable via TCP/25 by
> > > reachable.mailserver.com, which is configured to relay SMTP for the
> > > domain.
> > >
> > > A very, VERY few sending SMTP servers never even try to query the MX RR
> > > for reachable.mailserver.com.
> >
> > 	Most MTAs implement the full specfication.  Some implement
> > 	a minimal specfication.  Your configuration DOES NOT WORK
> > 	with MTAs that implement the minimal specfication.  Your
> > 	configuration therefore is broken as the RFCs tell you what
> > 	a minimal implementation is required to do and your
> > 	configuration will not work with such a client.
> >
> > > ... Kev
> > >
> > > On Wednesday 28 March 2007 09:23 pm, you wrote:
> > > > > You mean "their" configuration is broken?  The sending mail server is
> > > > > NOT ours.  We're on the receiving end.
> > > >
> > > > 	No.  Your configuration is broken.  The lowest preference
> > > > 	MXs MUST always be reachable.  You cannot depend upon
> > > > 	fallback to higher preference MXs.  The sending side is not
> > > > 	required to try them.  It is required to try all the lowest
> > > > 	preference MXs.
> > > >
> > > > > Our MX RRs are not empty.  We've got two MX RRs for the domain in
> > > > > question. Pref 5 is an internally firewalled server.  Pref 10 is a
> > > > > DMZ (world reachable) SMTP server.  99% of the SMTP servers sending
> > > > > us mail, query the MX RRs, select the most preferred, but the
> > > > > connection times out because THAT MX host isn't world reachable.  So
> > > > > they fall back to our pref 10 mailserver, which spools and delivers
> > > > > to the firewalled mailserver.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...except for a few, which I'm trying to narrow down to some common
> > > > > factor.
> > > > >
> > > > > RFC 2821 section 5 certainly strongly suggests that mail transport
> > > > > agents support multiple MX records.
> > > > >
> > > > > ... Kev
> > > >
> > > > 	A minimal SMTP client only has to try all the lowest preference
>  MXs.
> > > > 	Your lowest preference MXs are unreachable.  That make you wron
> g.
> > > >
> > > > 	[ I don't know why anyone would write a minimal SMTP client
> > > > 	  as a minimal SMTP client still has to be prepared to try
> > > > 	  multiple hosts and it really is not much more work to add
> > > > 	  all the hosts in the RRset to the list of servers to try.  ]
> > > >
> > > > 	Mark
> > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday 28 March 2007 08:04 pm, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > > > > > I've encountered a specific problem FOUR times in the past six
> > > > > > > months now and
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > am kindly asking Bind-Users for some insight.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The problem is sending SMTP servers that don't ever query past
> > > > > > > the first (hi pref) MX RRs.  The first time we encountered this
> > > > > > > problem, it was with an e-mail list server appliance (don't know
> > > > > > > the exact type/make/model) at a local university in our area.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The second and third times were with new MS Exchange servers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now today, I'm working on the same problem with a domain who's
> > > > > > > SMTP services are hosted by Network Solutions Inc. (NSI).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We use a strategy whereby our lowest numbered (high pref) MX RR
> > > > > > > is a firewalled host.  The higher numbered (lower pref) MX RR
> > > > > > > designates our DMZ SMTP server, which handles e-mail on behalf of
> > > > > > > the server in the other MX RR.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The DMZ SMTP server is world reachable on TCP/25.  It's straight
> > > > > > > out of the ORA Nutshell book, "Building Internet Firewalls".  We
> > > > > > > process 4 million messages per month, so I'm pretty sure that
> > > > > > > other organizations are still using MX and firewalls to force
> > > > > > > mail through the DMZ SMTP server, and then deliver back to a
> > > > > > > better protected mail server.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've verified that the sending SMTP server only ever queries the
> > > > > > > first (low numbered - high pref) MX RR.  After that...NOTHING. 
> > > > > > > It never tries the second.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The net result is that the sender (in this case) will queue SMTP
> > > > > > > traffic for our domain indefinitely....because they never look up
> > > > > > > MX RRs any lower than the highest pref MX RR.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Has anybody else run into this lately?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For the curious....   YES!  We plan on configuring transports in
> > > > > > > place of the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > old Firewall/MX strategy on our Postfix servers ASAP.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks in advance. :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ... Kev
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 	Your configuration is broken.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RFC 974
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    If the list of MX RRs is not empty, the mailer should try to
> > > > > > deliver the message to the MXs in order (lowest preference value
> > > > > > tried first).  The mailer is required to attempt delivery to the
> > > > > > lowest valued MX.  Implementors are encouraged to write mailers so
> > > > > > that they try the MXs in order until one of the MXs accepts the
> > > > > > message, or all the MXs have been tried.  A somewhat less demanding
> > > > > > system, in which a fixed number of MXs is tried, is also
> > > > > > reasonable.  Note that multiple MXs may have the same preference
> > > > > > value.  In this case, all MXs at with a given value must be tried
> > > > > > before any of a higher value are tried.  In addition, in the
> > > > > > special case in which there are several MXs with the lowest
> > > > > > preference value,  all of them should be tried before a message is
> > > > > > deemed undeliverable.
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews at isc.org