-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Jun 26 01:10:23 ns1 tcp-env[4348]: warning: can't verify hostname:
>gethostbyname(cobalt) failed
> > > Jun 26 01:10:23 ns1 tcp-env[4348]: refused connect from 216.221.160.30
> > > dig -x output...
> > > ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> > > 30.160.221.216.in-addr.arpa. 11h22m24s IN PTR cobalt.
> > > 30.160.221.216.in-addr.arpa. 11h22m24s IN PTR cobalt.propagation.net.
> > > Since I don't know... I'm asking... is that reverse pointer for that
> > > host wrong? It can't be just cobalt. and/or there can't be two?
> > yes. it might be (on a private network using IP, but this isn't).
> > there can only be one.
> There CAN be more than one. I've used as many as 7 PTR's on one IP before.
> Maybe there's not _supposed_ _to_ be, but it _can_ be. Maybe qmail won't
> support more than one, but it can get more than one. I did get all 7 PTRs
> and the above example shows that the 2 records do come through. So why
> would BIND support it if it's not supposed to be?
Well, I don't want to get into a pissing contest -- but I hate to make
hacks on software (ie: qmail/tcp-env) to allow a special case to work.
I'm going to wait and continue to investigate if this is a tcp-env snafu
or a loose bind implementation, etc.
Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBN3VboB4PLs9vCOqdAQGUIwQAymeOxvWLEEx8HrVxw9tAvROmn7gwC8Eu
5ZSvpD9JeTQyjIoFP6WD00hjienJy323PFoPVd1mEdPMg5iXVpOYI1O7tkTIE57g
TsKH/ct2vmn/oY7KLgtfZafd0BpPzDpke9rfeYrKTkvaD7Lqw2xWaFnFVIeFjN9u
lU8DVhXZHys=
=o0sd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
