On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:57:57 -0600, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there an RFC *requirement* for reverse dns?
No. > I've been looking through the RFCs and I can't find it. Right. > Some folks think reverse dns should be completely disabled. I wonder if these are the same folks who ignore most other best practices. > I know for sure that this will break email, because many mail servers won't > talk to a server > that doesn't reverse. For this reason, it is recommended (by me and many others) - but not required - to implement valid reverse DNS for the IP addresses of your SMTP servers. [..] > I'm also looking for a list of things that *break* when you disable reverse > (e.g. mail). Why disable it? > RULES FOR RESPONDING: > 1) "Reverse is a good thing" is not an answer. Neither is "Reverse is a > bad thing". Check. > 2) Opinions are not useful - stick to facts only - chapter and verse > please. 2 out of 3. > 3) All replies to the list please - others will find this useful as well. 3 out of 3. Time for me to pick-up a lottery ticket. ...D _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://www.secunia.com/
