On 2009-10-31 Noel Jones wrote: > On 10/31/2009 10:36 AM, Ansgar Wiechers wrote: >> There's also nothing wrong with a setup like this: >> >> 192.0.2.1 PTR uranus.example.com. >> 192.0.2.1 PTR www.example.com. >> 192.0.2.1 PTR ftp.example.com. >> 192.0.2.1 PTR blog.example.com. >> 192.0.2.1 PTR wiki.example.com. >> >> uranus.example.com. A 192.0.2.1 >> www.example.com. A 192.0.2.1 >> ftp.example.com. A 192.0.2.1 >> blog.example.com. A 192.0.2.1 >> wiki.example.com. A 192.0.2.1 >> >> Except that b0rken software may choke on it. Duh. > > ... and DNS returns a pseudo-random response, so you can't control > which PTR gets returned first. > > ... and software that cares about the PTR and doesn't choke won't ever > look past the first pseudo-random response.
You have a weird way of agreeing with me. > So you really don't gain anything other than getting to show off how > you can cram lots of unnecessary stuff into your DNS record. > Sometimes this makes the neubs feel better, but it really doesn't > bring any benefit. I didn't say that there's any actual benefit, but that having multiple PTR records is a valid configuration. Meaning that not "any given IP address should only have *one* corresponding PTR record", but "any given software should take into account the fact that a reverse lookup may return more than just one record". Besides, this still is unrelated to both Postfix and the OP's problem. Regards Ansgar Wiechers -- "Abstractions save us time working, but they don't save us time learning." --Joel Spolsky
