On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 04:08:21PM -0500, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Friday, February 7, 2003 at 20:39:06 (+0000), Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: ]
> I'm not talking about just RFCs and such -- I'm talking about deployed
> code and I'm talking about real-world interoperability problems.
Anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that you cause more of these
than you solve. (People picking up the phone instead of trying to email
you).
> Would you rather risk some unknown percentage of problems with your
> e-mail, or would you rather avoid all of that risk by properly deploying
> your DNS in the most complete and consistent manner possible? It's your
> risk, and your decision -- just don't even try to point the finger
> elsewhere when you've caused your own problems.
Right. I do agree with you about this. However, I have *NEVER* had
interoperability problems due to the way it works.
> > The box in question (colon.colondot.net) does not have PTRs for every
> > single A record that points to it. Far from it.
> > Now, your point?
> Where did I say anything about my mailer requiring PTRs? I said that it
> would reject clients with mis-configured or incomplete PTRs, not that it
> required a PTR of every client.
In which case, my point still holds.
There is a PTR 70.200.201.193.in-addr.arpa. to colon.colondot.net. but
there are all sorts of other A records that have an RHS of
193.201.200.70. Your claim about your MTA is therefore false. If the
paragraph above were true, that mail transaction in my original message
would have looked different.
> Indeed I have now at least twice said quite clearly that _NOT_ having
> PTRs is _BETTER_ than having broken ones. Have you not been paying
> close enough attention? All you've done so far is proven that point.
erm, I've been paying attention fine. I don't think you bothered to
read my message properly either. Perhaps the previous paragraph of
mine will help clarify to you that your claims are just patently not
true. I'm passing any kind of paranoid test that you are able to do
with the connecting IP address. Therefore your assertion that I must
have large number of PTRs for that one address is false, as even with
your strict setup, you can't tell the difference.
> (Isn't the English language a wonderful tool? :-)
Absolutely. Just a pity that you people across the pond abuse it so! :-)
MBM
--
Matthew Byng-Maddick <mbm@???> http://colondot.net/
