Is Hotmail in the habit of ignoring MX records?

[marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews)]

In message <A9A5C64B-831D-42BF-8A38-56CC3B9BAF48 at kapu.net>, Michael J Wise writ
es:
> 
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 1:35 AM, Lou Katz wrote:
> 
> > The domain is cookephoto.com
> 
> Why does mail.metron.com have MX records?

Why do you care?  There is nothing wrong with having explict MX
records and they generally take up less room in a DNS cache then
the negative response does especially if it is DNSSEC signed.

> And they're different.

Again why do you care?
 
> 	$ host cookephoto.com
> 	cookephoto.com has address 192.160.193.89
> 	cookephoto.com mail is handled by 10 mail.metron.com.
> 	cookephoto.com mail is handled by 12 mail2.metron.com.
> 	cookephoto.com mail is handled by 15 mail.katz.com.
> 
> 	$ host mail.metron.com
> 	mail.metron.com has address 192.160.193.14
> 	mail.metron.com mail is handled by 10 mail.metron.com.
> 	mail.metron.com mail is handled by 20 mail.katz.com.
> 
> 	$ host mail.katz.com
> 	mail.katz.com has address 192.160.193.14
> 
> 	$ host mail2.metron.com
> 	mail2.metron.com has address 209.204.189.91
> 
> 	$ host plaid.metron.com
> 	plaid.metron.com has address 192.160.193.135
> 
> Normally, in my experience, the actual mail server doesn't have MX 
> records as such, but=85.
> Just seems 0dd.

All address record (A and AAAAA) have MX records.  Some may be
implicit but as far as SMTP is concerned they all have MX records.

> Also, you say =85
> 
> > At the time of the transaction, nothing special was happening here, 
> ...
> 
> Was anything strange happening with any of the DNS records for any of 
> these domains in the past two days?
> 
> Aloha,
> Michael.
> -- 
> "Please have your Internet License             
>  and Usenet Registration handy..."
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org