Kurt A. Schumacher wrote: > ... >> This is a silly reverse setup. A reverse lookup should only return >> one hostname, not 20. > ... > > Well, tend to agree. > > What about the most stupid wanabe Spam-fighter which are very unhappy > as in place (e.g. the third-party service provider systems acting with > some SC subsidiaries...) which high rate valid messages if certain > brain-dead conditions like PTR not matching MX don't match?
Trying to work around them with a dodgy DNS setup is not the right course of action, IMHO. > If this approach works out, it could be considered. It is not illegal. Correct - it's just silly and it doesn't work as expected. 1) a properly working resolver library will return multiple records rotated once for every lookup, so you're never guaranteed to get the same answer to a reverse lookup. 2) most applications, e.g. mail-servers, that do reverse lookups do not expect more than one reply, and will always only process the first one. > It's just against what we are used to over the last 20+ years. Plus it doesn't work. /Per Jessen, Herrliberg -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business. _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
