Re: [Exim] Inbound Hosts without valid rDNS

On Wed, 2003-12-31 at 22:47, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Wednesday, December 31, 2003 at 16:23:58 (+0100), Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: [Exim] Inbound Hosts without valid rDNS
> >
> > note it says "for every IP address", not "for every A record".
>
> If you had bothered to try and understand the reverse DNS and how the
> DNS as a whole is designed then it would be abundantly clear to you
> that what you've quoted is incomplete, and what you say above is
> extremely misleading.

I believe I understand DNS, thank you.

> There is _no_such_thing_ as an "official" or "primary" hostname in the
> DNS, nor can there ever be any such construct, _by_its_very_design_.

but _every_ Unix host has such a primary hostname, it's the one you get
when you call gethostname(2) or uname(2). similarily, Windows machines
have _one_ primary name associated with them.

> > trying to get that changed will be almost impossible.
>
> You wouldn't know unless you've tried it as I have many times, in which
> case you'd have found out that it's not that difficult at all in the
> vast majority of cases and then you wouldn't have said what you said.

there are more worthy windmills to tilt at. as deployed, current best
practice is to have one PTR to the primary name of the host. I can't
see any advantages to changing this policy.
--
happy new year!
Kjetil T.