On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 16:13:53 +0100, Martin A. Brooks wrote
> On 07/06/2009 16:04, W B Hacker wrote:
> > as a public-facing MTA really, really does need to have a fixed-IP
> > with a valid PTR RR
>
> It doesn't matter how many times you say this, it's simply not true.
> No RFC requires this. This is you saying "I think a public-facing
> MTA really, really does need to have a fixed-IP with a valid PTR RR".
> Please express such things as opinions, and not as universally
> accepted facts or technical requirements, which is what they, however
> unintentionally, come across as.
>
> And, yes, I know I'll get my usual bounce from your mail server when
> it throws away yet another perfectly legitimate non-spam email,
> because I dare to send email from my home ADSL connection, starting
> the email in RFC1918 space, with no matching reverse DNS.
Sorry, but I fail to understand what point you're trying to make.
Your *public facing* MTA does have a valid PTR RR and your
envelope from doesn't use RFC1918 either. So your real problem is
most probably the fact, that your HELO uses completely different
domain than the PTR points to:
Received: from 82-69-6-203.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk ([82.69.6.203]:50456
helo=winter.hinterlands.org)
by tahini.csx.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <martin@???>) id 1MDK4U-0004Xe-0d
for exim-users@???; Sun, 07 Jun 2009 16:14:09 +0100
