From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/36387
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Sender header?
Date: 25 May 2001 00:10:48 -0400
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Message-ID: <m3itiq5arb.fsf@peorth.gweep.net>
References: <vafg0dwrpyh.fsf@lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
	<01May23.141128edt.115245@gateway.intersys.com>
	<vaf3d9uq4c4.fsf@lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
	<01May24.115917edt.115250@gateway.intersys.com>
	<vafsnhuk8t2.fsf@lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
	<01May24.143521edt.115214@gateway.intersys.com>
	<m3r8xeh8qw.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu>
	<01May24.153439edt.115213@gateway.intersys.com>
	<m2k836a3s6.fsf@barnowl.demon.co.uk>
	<01May24.171325edt.115217@gateway.intersys.com>
	<m3u22afnfm.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu> <m3n1822pvx.fsf@peorth.gweep.net>
	<hv1ypexiwb.fsf@spip.ws.nextra.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035171980 8318 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:46:20 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:46:20 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <owner-ding@gnus.org>
Original-Received: (qmail 3233 invoked by alias); 25 May 2001 04:10:49 -0000
Original-Received: (qmail 3228 invoked from network); 25 May 2001 04:10:49 -0000
Original-Received: from h0060978d8c91.ne.mediaone.net (HELO peorth.gweep.net) (ratinox@24.147.75.115)
  by gnus.org with SMTP; 25 May 2001 04:10:49 -0000
Original-Received: (from ratinox@localhost)
	by peorth.gweep.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA01502;
	Fri, 25 May 2001 00:10:48 -0400
Original-To: "(ding)" <ding@gnus.org>
X-Attribution: Rat
In-Reply-To: <hv1ypexiwb.fsf@spip.ws.nextra.no>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley)
Original-Lines: 11
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36387
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36387

* "Bjørn Mork" <bmork@dod.no>  on Thu, 24 May 2001
| RFC 1912 recommends adding MX records even for hosts which are not
| supposed to send or receive mail, but I don't think that justifies
| ignoring those who don't.

In what way is this different from "all A records should have associated MX
records"?
-- 
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>    \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
PGP Key: at a key server near you!  \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.