On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 20:49, John Summerfield wrote: > > > With all that said, it's still a bug that Marist has a system sending email > > > that doesn't have valid reverse DNS. > > > > Which RFC is it violating? > > It isnt violating any RFC
That is what I thought. If there's no requirement for PTR records for IP addresses, then you're placing yourself out on a limb in trying to enforce it. It's difficult enough getting conformance with official standards without others trying unofficial ones. > > When I got my latest ADSL connection I insisted my IP address resolve; I > > didn't care a lot what it resolved too. However, I don't know it's > > mandatory. > > DNS itself is an add on to the internet. Also technically a mailer > should only deliver mail _to_ a host with an MX record, but I wouldnt > try enforcing that either 8) The mx record exists, of course. Indeed, that is outside my IAP's control since my nameservers are elsewhere. However, the question was to do with IP addresses resolving and hosts configured to not accept mail from those that don't. One does not need am MX record in order to _send_ mail, not does a host sending mail need to be equipped to receive it. -- Cheers John. Join the "Linux Support by Small Businesses" list at http://mail.computerdatasafe.com.au/mailman/listinfo/lssb
