Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:

> ...
>> This is a silly reverse setup.  A reverse lookup should only return
>> one hostname, not 20.
> ...
> Well, tend to agree.
> What about the most stupid wanabe Spam-fighter which are very unhappy
> as in place (e.g. the third-party service provider systems acting with
> some SC subsidiaries...) which high rate valid messages if certain
> brain-dead conditions like PTR not matching MX don't match?

Trying to work around them with a dodgy DNS setup is not the right
course of action, IMHO.

> If this approach works out, it could be considered. It is not illegal.

Correct - it's just silly and it doesn't work as expected.

1) a properly working resolver library will return multiple records
rotated once for every lookup, so you're never guaranteed to get the
same answer to a reverse lookup.
2) most applications, e.g. mail-servers, that do reverse lookups do not
expect more than one reply, and will always only process the first one. 

> It's just against what we are used to over the last 20+ years.  

Plus it doesn't work. 

/Per Jessen, Herrliberg

http://www.spamchek.com/ - your spam is our business.

swinog mailing list

Antwort per Email an