Martin A. Brooks wrote: > On Mon, April 12, 2010 23:46, W B Hacker wrot >> We're way off-topic now, but having a valid PTR RR and proper DNS entries >> may be >> the single most important RFC requirement to insist on w/r zapping >> zombies. And >> the RFC in question isn't even smtp-specific. > > I think we've had this debate before, but there is no RFC that mandates > that reverse DNS exists.
.. so long as one does not connect to the internet, I suppose that is correct as a technicality. IANA/IETF don't worry all that much about regulation of private LAN's. But if/as/when you connect to the 'net - even absent any smtp service at all - the ground rules change, and you just might want to comply with the applicable RFC's - which, I say again - are NOT (just) embedded in those for smtp service. Deal with the IANA/IETF on your disagreement with what they - or the major carriers who DO read and comply [1] - require, not with me. Educating the unwilling was last in MY job description circa August of 1968 at Long Binh. Bill [1] http://postmaster.aol.com/info/rdns.html Gmail, Yahoo, MSN/Hotmail and other 'majors' may have less 'visible' and/or less concise explanations, but at least apply stiffer spam scores if not outright denial. Deal with that at your leisure. -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
