Do I really need an MX record? (for e-mail to work)

[Peter Dambier]

base60 wrote:
> sm5w2 at hotmail.com wrote:
> 
>>rick pim wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Because of all three of the above (especially item 3) I think I'll be
>>>>letting this experiment go a while longer and see if not having an MX
>>>>record turns out to be a great way to prevent spam from finding us.
>>>
>>>unfortunately, my experience with spam proxies is that they seem
>>>to find MX records just fine.
>>
>>
>>Um, my situation is that there is no MX record for my domain.  I'm
>>trying to say that having no MX record is actually great, because legit
>>e-mail is still getting to us, while the average of 50 spams per day
>>from zombie-relays has turned into a trickle of maybe 5.
> 
> 
> And what you're being told is that the presence or absence of an MX
> record has no bearing on the amount of spam you receive.
> 
> If legit email can be delivered when you have no MX, so can the spam.
> 
> 
>>
>>>in addition, we have had a number of complaints over the years from
>>>remote sites that cannot send mail to addresses that don't have MX
>>>records. this represents broken software, but it's not necessarily
>>>easy to convince irate folks of that.
>>
>>
>>I went to DNSstuff.com and did an ISP-lookup of our MX record.  What I
>>get back is a list of a few dozen ISP's and the results of their
>>attempts to look up our MX record.  Most of the responses is "No cache
>>answer:  Would go to NS of com (or .root)".  I take that to means that
>>they would look at the A record.
> 
> 
> Yeah, they check for an MX first and then an A.
> 
> If you don't have an MX, obviously you won't find one cached.
> 
> 
>>But yes, we run the risk of not getting e-mail from some organization
>>who's outgoing server does not look for the A record when it finds no
>>MX record.
> 
> 
> You're not listening: it **DOESN'T MATTER** if you have an A record
> for the domain.
> 
> 
>>
>>>IMHO, the bottom line is that going MX-less is unlikely to have a
>>>significant effect on spam volume
>>
>>
>>My experience is proving to be just the opposite.
> 
> 
> Believe what you want.
> 
> 
>>Over the past 7 years, our server has had a properly-configured MX
>>record, and has had the same IP address for that entire time (we had a
>>net-block of 64 IP's).  We have a few "well-known" e-mail addresses
>>(like "sales" and "support") which in 2004 received 26,000 spams (and
>>about 16,000 so far this year).  That works out to something like 50
>>spams per day.
>>
>>2 or 3 weeks ago, we pulled the plug and moved to a static ADSL
>>connection, and have seen spam drop to about 5 per day.
> 
> 
> Whatever.
> 
> 
>>The difference is that our MX record does not exist.  I'm going to keep
>>it that way unless I find that too much (or even any) legit e-mail is
>>not reaching us.  I'm basically looking for confirmation that this
>>strategy will work, as well as pointing out that the lack of an MX
>>record seems to be a powerful way to prevent spam.
> 
> 
> Believe what you want.
> 
> 

Again I can confirms this.

Adding an MX record to my no-ip.com DNS resulted in more spam.
I did not count. It is more a feeling but definitely there is
more spam in my mailbox than used to be. Maybe it is only
coincidence.

I would like to try removing the MX record - alas I am collecting
the emails from three host on a single mailer now. No way.

Seeing to which host the spam was originally sent I can still
claim it is more than used to be.


Regards,
Peter and Karin Dambier


-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
The Public-Root Consortium
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49(6252)671-788 (Telekom)
+49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/