1
2
3
4
5
6
7Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Levine
8Request for Comments: 7505 Taughannock Networks
9Category: Standards Track M. Delany
10ISSN: 2070-1721 Apple Inc.
11 June 2015
12
13
14 A "Null MX" No Service Resource Record for Domains That Accept No Mail
15
16Abstract
17
18 Internet mail determines the address of a receiving server through
19 the DNS, first by looking for an MX record and then by looking for an
20 A/AAAA record as a fallback. Unfortunately, this means that the
21 A/AAAA record is taken to be mail server address even when that
22 address does not accept mail. The No Service MX RR, informally
23 called "null MX", formalizes the existing mechanism by which a domain
24 announces that it accepts no mail, without having to provide a mail
25 server; this permits significant operational efficiencies.
26
27Status of This Memo
28
29 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
30
31 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
32 (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
33 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
34 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
35 Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
36
37 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
38 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
39 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7505.
40
41Copyright Notice
42
43 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
44 document authors. All rights reserved.
45
46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
49 publication of this document. Please review these documents
50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
54 described in the Simplified BSD License.
55
56
57
58Levine & Delany Standards Track [Page 1]
59
60RFC 7505 Null MX June 2015
61
62
63Table of Contents
64
65 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
66 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
67 3. MX Resource Records Specifying Null MX . . . . . . . . . . . 3
68 4. Effects of Null MX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
69 4.1. SMTP Server Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
70 4.2. Sending Mail from Domains That Publish Null MX . . . . . 4
71 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
72 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
73 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
74 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
75 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
76 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
77 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
78
791. Introduction
80
81 This document defines the No Service MX, informally called "null MX",
82 as a simple mechanism by which a domain can indicate that it does not
83 accept email.
84
85 SMTP clients have a prescribed sequence for identifying a server that
86 accepts email for a domain. Section 5 of [RFC5321] covers this in
87 detail; in essence, the SMTP client first looks up a DNS MX RR, and,
88 if that is not found, it falls back to looking up a DNS A or AAAA RR.
89 Hence, this overloads a DNS record (that has a different primary
90 mission) with an email service semantic.
91
92 If a domain has no MX records, senders will attempt to deliver mail
93 to the hosts at the addresses in the domain's A or AAAA records. If
94 there are no SMTP listeners at the A/AAAA addresses, message delivery
95 will be attempted repeatedly for a long period, typically a week,
96 before the sending Mail Transfer Agent (MTA) gives up. This will
97 delay notification to the sender in the case of misdirected mail and
98 will consume resources at the sender.
99
100 This document defines a null MX that will cause all mail delivery
101 attempts to a domain to fail immediately, without requiring domains
102 to create SMTP listeners dedicated to preventing delivery attempts.
103
1042. Conventions Used in This Document
105
106 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
107 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
108 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
109
110
111
112
113
114Levine & Delany Standards Track [Page 2]
115
116RFC 7505 Null MX June 2015
117
118
119 The terms "RFC5321.MailFrom" and "RFC5322.From" are used as defined
120 in [RFC5598].
121
1223. MX Resource Records Specifying Null MX ../smtpclient/gather.go:142
123
124 To indicate that a domain does not accept email, it advertises a
125 single MX RR (see Section 3.3.9 of [RFC1035]) with an RDATA section
126 consisting of preference number 0 and a zero-length label, written in
127 master files as ".", as the exchange domain, to denote that there
128 exists no mail exchanger for a domain. Since "." is not a valid host
129 name, a null MX record cannot be confused with an ordinary MX record.
130 The use of "." as a pseudo-hostname meaning no service available is
131 modeled on the SRV RR [RFC2782] where it has a similar meaning.
132
133 A domain that advertises a null MX MUST NOT advertise any other MX
134 RR.
135
1364. Effects of Null MX
137
138 The null MX record has a variety of efficiency and usability
139 benefits.
140
1414.1. SMTP Server Benefits
142
143 Mail often has an incorrect address due to user error, where the
144 address was mistranscribed or misunderstood, for example, to
145 alice@www.example.com, alice@example.org, or alice@examp1e.com rather
146 than alice@example.com. Null MX allows a mail system to report the
147 delivery failure when the user sends the message, rather than hours
148 or days later.
149
150 Senders of abusive mail often use forged undeliverable return
151 addresses. Null MX allows Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs) and
152 other attempted responses to such mail to be disposed of efficiently.
153
154 The ability to detect domains that do not accept email offers
155 resource savings to an SMTP client. It will discover on the first
156 sending attempt that an address is not deliverable, avoiding queuing
157 and retries.
158
159 When a submission or SMTP relay server rejects an envelope recipient
160 due to a domain's null MX record, it SHOULD use a 556 reply code
161 [RFC7504] (Requested action not taken: domain does not accept mail)
162 and a 5.1.10 enhanced status code (Permanent failure: Recipient
163 address has null MX).
164
165
166
167
168
169
170Levine & Delany Standards Track [Page 3]
171
172RFC 7505 Null MX June 2015
173
174
175 A receiving SMTP server that chooses to reject email during the SMTP
176 conversation that presents an undeliverable RFC5321.MailFrom or
177 RFC5322.From domain can be more confident that for other messages a
178 subsequent attempt to send a DSN or other response will reach a
179 recipient SMTP server.
180
181 SMTP servers that reject mail because a RFC5321.MailFrom or ../smtpserver/server.go:1507
182 RFC5322.From domain has a null MX record SHOULD use a 550 reply code
183 (Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable) and a 5.7.27
184 enhanced status code (Permanent failure: Sender address has null MX).
185
1864.2. Sending Mail from Domains That Publish Null MX
187
188 Null MX is primarily intended for domains that do not send or receive
189 any mail, but have mail sent to them anyway due to mistakes or
190 malice. Many receiving systems reject mail that has an invalid
191 return address. Return addresses are needed to allow the sender to
192 handle message delivery errors. An invalid return address often
193 signals that the message is spam. Hence, mail systems SHOULD NOT
194 publish a null MX record for domains that they use in
195 RFC5321.MailFrom or RFC5322.From addresses. If a system nonetheless
196 does so, it risks having its mail rejected.
197
198 Operators of domains that do not send mail can publish Sender Policy
199 Framework (SPF) "-all" policies [RFC7208] to make an explicit
200 declaration that the domains send no mail.
201
202 Null MX is not intended to be a replacement for the null reverse-path
203 described in Section 4.5.5 of RFC 5321 and does not change the
204 meaning or use of a null reverse-path.
205
2065. Security Considerations
207
208 Within the DNS, a null MX RR is an ordinary MX record and presents no
209 new security issues. If desired, it can be secured in the same
210 manner as any other DNS record using DNSSEC.
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226Levine & Delany Standards Track [Page 4]
227
228RFC 7505 Null MX June 2015
229
230
2316. IANA Considerations
232
233 IANA has added the following entries to the "Enumerated Status Codes"
234 subregistry of the "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Enhanced
235 Status Codes Registry".
236
237 Code: X.1.10 ../smtp/codes.go:66
238 Sample Text: Recipient address has null MX
239 Associated basic status code: 556
240 Description: This status code is returned when the associated
241 address is marked as invalid using a null MX.
242 Reference: This document
243 Submitter: Authors of this document
244 Change controller: IESG
245
246 Code: X.7.27 ../smtp/codes.go:144
247 Sample Text: Sender address has null MX
248 Associated basic status code: 550
249 Description: This status code is returned when the associated
250 sender address has a null MX, and the SMTP
251 receiver is configured to reject mail from such
252 sender (e.g., because it could not return a DSN).
253 Reference: This document
254 Submitter: Authors of this document
255 Change controller: IESG
256
2577. References
258
2597.1. Normative References
260
261 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
262 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
263 November 1987, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
264
265 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
266 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
267 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
268 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
269
270 [RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
271 DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008,
272 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321>.
273
274 [RFC7504] Klensin, J., "SMTP 521 and 556 Reply Codes", RFC 7504,
275 DOI 10.17487/RFC7504, June 2015,
276 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7504>.
277
278
279
280
281
282Levine & Delany Standards Track [Page 5]
283
284RFC 7505 Null MX June 2015
285
286
2877.2. Informative References
288
289 [RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
290 specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
291 DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, February 2000,
292 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2782>.
293
294 [RFC5598] Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598,
295 DOI 10.17487/RFC5598, July 2009,
296 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5598>.
297
298 [RFC7208] Kitterman, S., "Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for
299 Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1", RFC 7208,
300 DOI 10.17487/RFC7208, April 2014,
301 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7208>.
302
303Acknowledgements
304
305 We thank Dave Crocker for his diligent and lengthy shepherding of
306 this document, and members of the APPSAWG working group for their
307 constructive suggestions.
308
309Authors' Addresses
310
311 John Levine
312 Taughannock Networks
313 PO Box 727
314 Trumansburg, NY 14886
315 United States
316
317 Phone: +1 831 480 2300
318 Email: standards@taugh.com
319 URI: http://jl.ly
320
321
322 Mark Delany
323 Apple Inc.
324 1 Infinite Loop
325 Cupertino, CA 95014
326 United States
327
328 Email: mx0dot@yahoo.com
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338Levine & Delany Standards Track [Page 6]
339
340