A "Null MX" No Service Resource Record for Domains That Accept No Mail
RFC 7505
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (June 2015; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | John Levine , Mark Delany | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Replaces | draft-delany-nullmx | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Dave Crocker | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2014-07-06) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 7505 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Barry Leiba | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Levine
Request for Comments: 7505 Taughannock Networks
Category: Standards Track M. Delany
ISSN: 2070-1721 Apple Inc.
June 2015
A "Null MX" No Service Resource Record for Domains That Accept No Mail
Abstract
Internet mail determines the address of a receiving server through
the DNS, first by looking for an MX record and then by looking for an
A/AAAA record as a fallback. Unfortunately, this means that the
A/AAAA record is taken to be mail server address even when that
address does not accept mail. The No Service MX RR, informally
called "null MX", formalizes the existing mechanism by which a domain
announces that it accepts no mail, without having to provide a mail
server; this permits significant operational efficiencies.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7505.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Levine & Delany Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7505 Null MX June 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. MX Resource Records Specifying Null MX . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Effects of Null MX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. SMTP Server Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. Sending Mail from Domains That Publish Null MX . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
This document defines the No Service MX, informally called "null MX",
as a simple mechanism by which a domain can indicate that it does not
accept email.
SMTP clients have a prescribed sequence for identifying a server that
accepts email for a domain. Section 5 of [RFC5321] covers this in
detail; in essence, the SMTP client first looks up a DNS MX RR, and,
if that is not found, it falls back to looking up a DNS A or AAAA RR.
Hence, this overloads a DNS record (that has a different primary
mission) with an email service semantic.
If a domain has no MX records, senders will attempt to deliver mail
to the hosts at the addresses in the domain's A or AAAA records. If
there are no SMTP listeners at the A/AAAA addresses, message delivery
will be attempted repeatedly for a long period, typically a week,
before the sending Mail Transfer Agent (MTA) gives up. This will
delay notification to the sender in the case of misdirected mail and
will consume resources at the sender.
This document defines a null MX that will cause all mail delivery
attempts to a domain to fail immediately, without requiring domains
to create SMTP listeners dedicated to preventing delivery attempts.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Levine & Delany Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7505 Null MX June 2015
The terms "RFC5321.MailFrom" and "RFC5322.From" are used as defined
in [RFC5598].
3. MX Resource Records Specifying Null MX
To indicate that a domain does not accept email, it advertises a
single MX RR (see Section 3.3.9 of [RFC1035]) with an RDATA section
consisting of preference number 0 and a zero-length label, written in
master files as ".", as the exchange domain, to denote that there
exists no mail exchanger for a domain. Since "." is not a valid host
name, a null MX record cannot be confused with an ordinary MX record.
The use of "." as a pseudo-hostname meaning no service available is
modeled on the SRV RR [RFC2782] where it has a similar meaning.
A domain that advertises a null MX MUST NOT advertise any other MX
RR.
4. Effects of Null MX
The null MX record has a variety of efficiency and usability
benefits.
4.1. SMTP Server Benefits
Mail often has an incorrect address due to user error, where the
address was mistranscribed or misunderstood, for example, to
alice@www.example.com, alice@example.org, or alice@examp1e.com rather
than alice@example.com. Null MX allows a mail system to report the
delivery failure when the user sends the message, rather than hours
or days later.
Senders of abusive mail often use forged undeliverable return
addresses. Null MX allows Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs) and
other attempted responses to such mail to be disposed of efficiently.
The ability to detect domains that do not accept email offers
resource savings to an SMTP client. It will discover on the first
sending attempt that an address is not deliverable, avoiding queuing
and retries.
When a submission or SMTP relay server rejects an envelope recipient
due to a domain's null MX record, it SHOULD use a 556 reply code
[RFC7504] (Requested action not taken: domain does not accept mail)
and a 5.1.10 enhanced status code (Permanent failure: Recipient
address has null MX).
Levine & Delany Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7505 Null MX June 2015
A receiving SMTP server that chooses to reject email during the SMTP
conversation that presents an undeliverable RFC5321.MailFrom or
RFC5322.From domain can be more confident that for other messages a
subsequent attempt to send a DSN or other response will reach a
recipient SMTP server.
SMTP servers that reject mail because a RFC5321.MailFrom or
RFC5322.From domain has a null MX record SHOULD use a 550 reply code
(Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable) and a 5.7.27
enhanced status code (Permanent failure: Sender address has null MX).
4.2. Sending Mail from Domains That Publish Null MX
Null MX is primarily intended for domains that do not send or receive
any mail, but have mail sent to them anyway due to mistakes or
malice. Many receiving systems reject mail that has an invalid
return address. Return addresses are needed to allow the sender to
handle message delivery errors. An invalid return address often
signals that the message is spam. Hence, mail systems SHOULD NOT
publish a null MX record for domains that they use in
RFC5321.MailFrom or RFC5322.From addresses. If a system nonetheless
does so, it risks having its mail rejected.
Operators of domains that do not send mail can publish Sender Policy
Framework (SPF) "-all" policies [RFC7208] to make an explicit
declaration that the domains send no mail.
Null MX is not intended to be a replacement for the null reverse-path
described in Section 4.5.5 of RFC 5321 and does not change the
meaning or use of a null reverse-path.
5. Security Considerations
Within the DNS, a null MX RR is an ordinary MX record and presents no
new security issues. If desired, it can be secured in the same
manner as any other DNS record using DNSSEC.
Levine & Delany Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7505 Null MX June 2015
6. IANA Considerations
IANA has added the following entries to the "Enumerated Status Codes"
subregistry of the "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Enhanced
Status Codes Registry".
Code: X.1.10
Sample Text: Recipient address has null MX
Associated basic status code: 556
Description: This status code is returned when the associated
address is marked as invalid using a null MX.
Reference: This document
Submitter: Authors of this document
Change controller: IESG
Code: X.7.27
Sample Text: Sender address has null MX
Associated basic status code: 550
Description: This status code is returned when the associated
sender address has a null MX, and the SMTP
receiver is configured to reject mail from such
sender (e.g., because it could not return a DSN).
Reference: This document
Submitter: Authors of this document
Change controller: IESG
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321>.
[RFC7504] Klensin, J., "SMTP 521 and 556 Reply Codes", RFC 7504,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7504, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7504>.
Levine & Delany Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7505 Null MX June 2015
7.2. Informative References
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, February 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2782>.
[RFC5598] Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5598, July 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5598>.
[RFC7208] Kitterman, S., "Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for
Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1", RFC 7208,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7208, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7208>.
Acknowledgements
We thank Dave Crocker for his diligent and lengthy shepherding of
this document, and members of the APPSAWG working group for their
constructive suggestions.
Authors' Addresses
John Levine
Taughannock Networks
PO Box 727
Trumansburg, NY 14886
United States
Phone: +1 831 480 2300
Email: standards@taugh.com
URI: http://jl.ly
Mark Delany
Apple Inc.
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014
United States
Email: mx0dot@yahoo.com
Levine & Delany Standards Track [Page 6]