On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 06:19:31PM -0400, Maria Iano wrote:
> We have a group of users that need to use a wildcard record in
> their zone. Their wildcard works in general, but they have a
> situation where it isn't working. They had some records that they
> deleted, and expected the wildcard to
We have a group of users that need to use a wildcard record in their
zone. Their wildcard works in general, but they have a situation where it
isn't working. They had some records that they deleted, and expected
the wildcard to take over, but it hasn't. If we query a record that
doesn't exist and n
Am 19.06.2017 um 16:56 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
since DNS don't care about the PTR but mail does what is your
problem that you need stupid dicussions instead just agree that
it can't do harm and in doubt is beneficial to have just one
hostname, use that one hostname in helo_name and have
Am 19.06.2017 um 16:56 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
since DNS don't care about the PTR but mail does what is your problem
that you need stupid dicussions instead just agree that it can't do
harm and in doubt is beneficial to have just one hostname, use that
one hostname in helo_name and ha
Am 19.06.2017 um 15:25 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
those rejections were NOT caused by having two different PTRs.
They were caused by something different that is not a subject of this
thread - even one PTR of this format would cause rejections.
On 19.06.17 15:32, Reindl Harald wrote:
not di
Am 19.06.2017 um 15:25 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
* smtp_helo_name of your MTA matches the same name
this one is incorrect and my next comment applies only to this one:
On 19.06.17 15:14, Reindl Harald wrote:
does it harm? NO
is it easy to achive? YES
can it be used for scoring on a s
* smtp_helo_name of your MTA matches the same name
this one is incorrect and my next comment applies only to this one:
On 19.06.17 15:14, Reindl Harald wrote:
does it harm? NO
is it easy to achive? YES
can it be used for scoring on a spamfilter? YES
is it required? NO.
Actually, this would
Am 19.06.2017 um 15:00 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 19.06.17 01:05, Reindl Harald wrote:
it's nearly always misleading and results in randomness on the
receiving server which name get logged and if A/PTR matches
normally you should always have:
* IP with *one* PTR
* the A-Record for t
On 19.06.17 01:05, Reindl Harald wrote:
it's nearly always misleading and results in randomness on the
receiving server which name get logged and if A/PTR matches
normally you should always have:
* IP with *one* PTR
* the A-Record for the PTR matches
these two are correct.
* smtp_helo_name
In article you write:
>>* IP with *one* PTR
>>* the A-Record for the PTR matches
>>* smtp_helo_name of your MTA matches the same name
>
>Even this is not required. In fact, requiring this breaks SMTP RFC.
>The only requirement on helo name is that host must exist and be canonical,
>which means it
Am 19.06.2017 um 08:49 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 18.06.17 16:26, Mark Elkins wrote:
Put two reverse records in both the IPv4 and IPv6 reverse zones
in the "125.124.123.in-addr.arpa" zone:
126 IN PTR mail.xxx.com.
126 IN PTR ns.xxx.com.
Am 18.06.2017 um 17:38 schr
On 06/19/2017 10:42 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
If I do what you say reverse IP for DNS will point on mail.xxx.com
and not on ns.xxx.com.
I have asked you twice:
WHO TOLD YOU THIS IS A PROBLEM? IT IS NOT!
There are only a few services on the net who currently use reverse DNS
records
On 06/19/2017 10:27 AM, Mark Elkins wrote:
Another solution could be to make one of the names a CNAME pointing to
the other name.
-or-
Just use one generic name for both services. rather than the two
"service" names.
Although in all honesty, I see nothing wrong with a lookup returning two
a
On 19.06.17 10:27, Mark Elkins wrote:
Another solution could be to make one of the names a CNAME pointing to
the other name.
No.
This would create a real problem, since NS and mail have different
records.
-or-
Just use one generic name for both services. rather than the two
"service"
On 06/19/2017 08:51 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
long story short:
in the "125.124.123.in-addr.arpa" zone:
126 IN PTR mail.xxx.com.
quoting your original message:
What should I put for IPV4 reverse address : if I put mail.xxx.com, the
reverse address will not point on ns.xxx.com,
Another solution could be to make one of the names a CNAME pointing to
the other name.
-or-
Just use one generic name for both services. rather than the two
"service" names.
Although in all honesty, I see nothing wrong with a lookup returning two
answers (in a single response packet) for the o
On 06/19/2017 08:51 AM, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 19.06.17 08:03, Pierre Couderc wrote:
Ok, thank you all, now I need to understand your answers...
long story short:
in the "125.124.123.in-addr.arpa" zone:
126 IN PTR mail.xxx.com.
quoting your original message:
What should I
On 06/19/2017 01:05 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.06.2017 um 17:38 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
On 18.06.17 16:26, Mark Elkins wrote:
Put two reverse records in both the IPv4 and IPv6 reverse zones
in the "125.124.123.in-addr.arpa" zone:
126 IN PTR mail.xxx.com.
126 IN PT
18 matches
Mail list logo