[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Problems with mail system? [Fwd: Returned mail: User unknown]



In article <20000907170039.B30665@debian.org>,
Joseph Carter  <knghtbrd@debian.org> wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 08:44:06PM +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>> A server on the 'net without matching forward/reverse DNS is broken.
>> Period.
>
>Complete bullshit.  Show me the RFC that says you may only have one DNS
>name attached to an IP at a time.  You can't do it because it doesn't
>exist.

Go and read the (according to you non-existant) RFC 1912

>Several Debian developers have debian.net subdomains which do not
>reverse because they have no control over their DNS even though their IP
>addresses are static.

Doesn't matter. As long as getipaddr(gethostname(ipaddr)) == ipaddr,
and that is the case. gethostname(getipaddr(hostname)) == hostname
doesn't have to match, in fact for an incoming connection you
can't even check that fact. So your arguments are bogus.

Wait - you are talking about the envelope address. No mail server
I know of does a check of this kind against the envelope address.
Just a quick check to see if the domain resolves is usually all
that is done.

>My static IP address with @home (yes, I did
>convince them to give me one) is cc659474-a.indnpls1.in.home.com as far as
>they are concerned.  I have no desire to use that hostname on my email, so
>I have this:
>
>tank.debian.net         A       24.22.127.210

No problem, but you *really* should have this entry:

tank.debian.net         A       24.22.127.210
			MX	50	cc659474-a.indnpls1.in.home.com.
			MX	100	some.friendly.fallback.host.

>This is perfectly legal practice according to every RFC I have ever read.

Yes. There are also perfectly legal ways to avoid paying tax.
Does that also mean that that was how the lawmakers intended it ?

>It is also quite legitimate for my system to declare that it is
>tank.debian.net which does indeed resolve to a valid IP address.  The fact
>people such as yourself would add the additional requirement that
>24.22.127.210 resolve back to tank.debian.net has nothing to do with what
>the RFC's state is correct.

No, if you connect to my server, I can only see that you are connecting
from 24.22.127.210. That resolves to cc659474-a.indnpls1.in.home.com,
which in turn resolves back to 24.22.127.210. Your DNS is perfectly valid.

>If I file a bug against a package and my report is bounced as probably
>spam, I will NMU the package immediately without discussion or further
>attempts at a warning.

Ah. Now, what if the report bounces because the mail server from my
ISP is badly configured/maintained, and it looks like a spam bounce
but isn't really. Should I get another ISP? Oops, redo mailthread
from start.

Mike.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


Reply to: