I set up like this with no problems..
zone record
mydomain.com A 123.456.789.123 www.mydomain.com A 123.456.789.123 mydomain.com MX 10 mail.mydomain.com mail.mydomain.com A 123.456.789.124 ftp.mydomain.com A 123.456.789.123
reverse zone file
123.789.456.123.in-addr.arpa PTR mydomain.com 123.789.456.123.in-addr.arpa PTR www.mydomain.com 123.789.456.123.in-addr.arpa PTR ftp.mydomain.com 124.789.456.123.in-addr.arpa PTR mail.mydomain.com
But I was wrong about one thing: RFC 2181
10.2. PTR records
Confusion about canonical names has lead to a belief that a PTR record should have exactly one RR in its RRSet. This is incorrect, the relevant section of RFC1034 (section 3.6.2) indicates that the value of a PTR record should be a canonical name. That is, it should not be an alias. There is no implication in that section that only one PTR record is permitted for a name. No such restriction should be inferred.
So you can have multiple PTR records.
However, see
http://www.acmebw.com/askmrdns/archive.php?category=85&question=631. Apparently most everyone also believes what I did, and has written their
apps get back only one name matching a PTR.
But it's interesting to see that AOL will accept mail if you have a PTR,
even if it's wrong!
>> >Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:24 PMAhh, now I see what you mean. Sorry, I assumed that since I had no trouble getting mail thru to AOL, I passed the reverse lookup. Now the conversation makes more sense, thanks
Mark Bushaw
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Conlon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 4:28 PM Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: including snippets of code [OT] Mail
What do you mean by 'pass reverse DNS lookup'?
My DNS query shows:
bushaw.org. 43200 A 64.60.193.244 moveitout.com. 43200 A 64.60.193.244 244.193.60.64.in-addr.arpa. 86400 PTR 64-60-193-244.cust.telepacific.net.
Clearly the PTR doesn't match the A records.
>These domains are all on the same computer, using the same mailserver and >they all pass reverse DNS lookup- >Bushaw.org >Saxpics.com >SimProUSA.com >CoastalMicroSupply.com >MoveItOut.com > >Mark Bushaw > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Bill Conlon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> >> >All the hosted domains A records point directly to the IP address. Thevia>Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: including snippets of code [OT] Mail > > >> Ok, here's a typical setup (ignoring NS records) that people use for >> hosting domains >> >> Your main zone is >> >> mydomain.com A 123.456.789.123 >> www.mydomain.com CNAME mydomain.com >> mydomain.com MX 10 mydomain.com >> >> Lets assume you have a full Class C, since it's simpler than classless >> delegation (when you have 8/16/32/64/128 IP addresses) >> >> Then your reverse zone includes: >> >> 123.789.456.123.in-addr.arpa PTR mydomain.com >> >> So you're typically sending mail with your address ([EMAIL PROTECTED])test>> your SMTP server at mydomain.com which passes the reverse lookup test. >> >> Your client at herdomain.com is using virtual hosts on yours server and >> is set up as: >> >> herdomain.com A 123.456.789.123 >> www.herdomain.com CNAME herdomain.com >> herdomain.com MX 10 herdomain.com >> >> There can't be a single pointer to two A records, so when >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] sends mail, the reverse lookup points to >> mydomain.com! This causes the mail to bounce if the reverse lookup>> is used. >> >> >> >> >Very Interesting! I have multiple domains and a single mail server. >> >The mail server has its own domain (smtpmirage.net).MX>> >> >>>> >record points to mail@<domain>.com (and mail@<domain>.com is an Arecord>> >that points to the IP address). >> >Seems to work OK...... >> > >> >Mark Bushaw >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "Ben Johansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 2:36 PM >> >Subject: RE: Witango-Talk: including snippets of code [OT] >> > >> > >> >> Interesting>> >> >> >this>> >> Didn't realize that because I have multiple domains on mine. >> >> >> >> >Anyway, it's just a rant. I had a server crash on me earlier this >year >> >> >> >> >when it got hijaced by a spammer, and I've spent a lot of hoursfrom>> >> year >> >> >fighting off spam. But I still think it's better to allow mail>> >> >senders that don't pass the reverse lookup, and instead rely onblack>> >> >hole lists at the server, and some simple filters on the mailreaders.receive>> >> >> >> >Because I don't want to have to tell my clients that we can'thttp://www.pcforge.com/WitangoGoodies.htm>> >> >mail from them. >> >> >> >> Considering turning it off. >> >> >> >> Ben Johansen - http://www.pcforge.com >> >> Authorized Witango Resellersupport>> >> Authorized MDaemon Mail Server Reseller >> >> http://www.pcforge.com/AltN.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Bill Conlon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 2:11 PM >> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Subject: RE: Witango-Talk: including snippets of code [OT] >> >> >> >> Off-topic: >> >> >> >> I would send this directly, but it might bounce. >> >> >> >> One problem w/ PTR records is they map one-to-one to A records. But >> >> many >> >> names (both A and CNAME records) map to one PTR. Hence if you>> >> many domains with a single mail server, you can't satisfy thereversereverse>> >> lookup condition. >> >> >> >> Also, you can't always keep PTRs up to date unless you run the>> >> zone for your subnet. Some ISPs will NOT provide classlessdelegation,>> >> so you have to depend on the ISP to maintain your PTRs, leaving youatour>> >> their mercy -- not a good thing in my opinion. >> >> >> >> For most of our clients for whom we provide mail, I ask them to usejust>> >> server for POP, but continue to use their ISP for SMTP. Some though >> >> prefer to use our server for both, and the consequence is that AOLhave>> >> doesn't get messages from them. >> >> >> >> Of course AOL's hypocracy is the big story, since they and hotmail>> >> been big spam sources. And much spam now flows through openrelays,>> >> which may still have PTR records that match the A record, so whatdoesyear>> >> that do? >> >> >> >> Anyway, it's just a rant. I had a server crash on me earlier thisblack>> >> when it got hijaced by a spammer, and I've spent a lot of hours this >> >> year >> >> fighting off spam. But I still think it's better to allow mail from >> >> senders that don't pass the reverse lookup, and instead rely on>> >> hole lists at the server, and some simple filters on the mailreaders.receive>> >> >> >> Because I don't want to have to tell my clients that we can't>> >> mail from them. >> >> >> >> >Hi, >> >> > >> >> >Sorry you couldn't connect. >> >> > >> >> >I went to dnsreport.com and your mail server doesn't reverse DNS >> >> >(checkout fail in MX section) >> >> > >> >> >>http://www.dnsreport.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=internetcommercesolu >> >> t >> >> >ions.net >> >> > >> >> >In order to curb spam there is a shift in this, AOL has shifted to >this >> >> >and those who have mail servers that don't have PTR (reverse DNS) >> >> cannot >> >> >post to AOL. There are a bunch of companies that are following suit >> >> >>> >> >> >Ben,http://www.pcforge.com/WitangoGoodies.htm>> >> >Ben Johansen - http://www.pcforge.com >> >> >Authorized Witango Reseller[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> >Authorized MDaemon Mail Server Reseller >> >> >http://www.pcforge.com/AltN.htm >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >> >From: Fogelson, Steve>> >> >Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 1:26 PM >> >> >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >> >> >Subject: RE: Witango-Talk: including snippets of code >> >> >>> >> 345 California Avenue Suite 2check>> >> > >> >> >I have had that trouble in the past as well. You might want toof>it >> >> >out. >> >> >I was going to buy a Witango update from you on the day before the >> >> price >> >> >increases, but couldn't get through you email server. >> >> > >> >> >Have made the update since. >> >> > >> >> >Steve Fogelson >> >> > >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >> >From: John McGowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:13 PM >> >> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: including snippets of code >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Ben, >> >> > >> >> >I tried to send this post to you off the list, but your mail server >> >> >doesn't seem to be accepting any thing from my mail server. >> >> > >> >> >Anyway, see my comments below about nested @includes. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Ben Johansen wrote: >> >> > >> >> >>Off List, >> >> >> >> >> >>Now, I remember (coffee finally kicked in) >> >> >> >> >> >>The reason your sub-include of the TML works is because TML is oneacross.>> >> >>the extensions setup in the web server to tell the web server that >> >> >>Witango is responsible to process this file. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >No, the @include tag doesn't interact at all with the web server. >It >> >> >also doesn't care about file extensions. When the app server comes >> >> >across an @include, it doesn't care what file extension it is... it >> >> >simply includes the file and evaluates any meta code it comesthis>> >> > >> >> >>In the case where an included HTML file calling a SUB-HTML fileout.>> >> is >> >> >>not the case. The SUB would not have its metatags processed >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Yes they are... See the enclosed example... I just tested this>> >> > >> >> >test.taf does an @include of test1.html >> >> > >> >> >test1.html does an @include of test2.html >> >> >test2.html does an @include of test3.html >> >> >test3.html executes @currentdate. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >/John >> >> > >> >> >>_______________________________________________________________________ >> >> _ >> >> >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf >> >> >>_______________________________________________________________________ >> >> _ >> >> >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf >> >> > >> >> >>_______________________________________________________________________ >> >> _ >> >> >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Bill Conlon >> >> >> >> To the Point >> >> 345 California Avenue Suite 2 >> >> Palo Alto, CA 94306 >> >> >> >> office: 650.327.2175 >> >> fax: 650.329.8335 >> >> mobile: 650.906.9929 >> >> e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> web: http://www.tothept.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >________________________________________________________________________ >> >> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf >> >> >> >> >________________________________________________________________________ >> >> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf >> > >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf >> > >> >> >> Bill Conlon >> >> To the Point>> Bill Conlon________________________________________________________________________>> Palo Alto, CA 94306 >> >> office: 650.327.2175 >> fax: 650.329.8335 >> mobile: 650.906.9929 >> e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> web: http://www.tothept.com >> >> >>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf > >________________________________________________________________________ >TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf >
To the Point 345 California Avenue Suite 2 Palo Alto, CA 94306
office: 650.327.2175 fax: 650.329.8335 mobile: 650.906.9929 e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.tothept.com
________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
Bill Conlon
To the Point 345 California Avenue Suite 2 Palo Alto, CA 94306
office: 650.327.2175 fax: 650.329.8335 mobile: 650.906.9929 e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.tothept.com
________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
-- ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
