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

Re: not accepting mail despite proper A<->PTR setup



also sprach Nathan E Norman <nnorman@incanus.net> [2003.03.22.2015 +0100]:
> Multiple PTR records do not make sense.  Every IP address should have
> a PTR record; there should be a valid A record which corresponds to a
> PTR record.  Additional A records are allowed.

This is what I argue, and which seems to echo even Paul Vixie and
Dan Bernstein. However, there are strong opposers, and I wouldn't
mind hearing your arguments. Multiple PTR records are possible, and
apparently there *are* pieces of software that employ these data. My
main argument is that it isn't used on a wide scale, so what's the
point?

> These days testing for a valid PTR record and A record combination is
> rather painful as many people seem to get this wrong.

That's not an argument, I find.

> indicative of "clue" level at the remote end.  If you do it correctly
> you can make it obvious when someone is using an IP they shouldn't be
> using; for all your unassigned IPs set the PTR record to an invalid A
> record (like "invalid.isp.net").

Now *this* would violate the RFC, I believe.

> As far as I can tell, your setup works.  I'm not sure why the remote
> has decided to reject your connection.  Perhaps you could configure
> your MTA to send "debian4.unizh.ch" as the HELO/EHLO argument?

I am not going to do jack ;^>

-- 
Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them!
 
 .''`.     martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :'  :    proud Debian developer, admin, and user
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
 
Keyserver problems? http://keyserver.kjsl.com/~jharris/keyserver.html
Get my key here: http://madduck.net/me/gpg/publickey

Attachment: pgpEFQgyW0ZNJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: