Martin A. Brooks wrote:
> On Mon, April 12, 2010 23:46, W B Hacker wrot
>> We're way off-topic now, but having a valid PTR RR and proper DNS entries
>> may be
>> the single most important RFC requirement to insist on w/r zapping
>> zombies. And
>> the RFC in question isn't even smtp-specific.
>
> I think we've had this debate before, but there is no RFC that mandates
> that reverse DNS exists.
.. so long as one does not connect to the internet, I suppose that is correct as
a technicality. IANA/IETF don't worry all that much about regulation of private
LAN's.
But if/as/when you connect to the 'net - even absent any smtp service at all -
the ground rules change, and you just might want to comply with the applicable
RFC's - which, I say again - are NOT (just) embedded in those for smtp service.
Deal with the IANA/IETF on your disagreement with what they - or the major
carriers who DO read and comply [1] - require, not with me.
Educating the unwilling was last in MY job description circa August of 1968 at
Long Binh.
Bill
[1]
http://postmaster.aol.com/info/rdns.html
Gmail, Yahoo, MSN/Hotmail and other 'majors' may have less 'visible' and/or less
concise explanations, but at least apply stiffer spam scores if not outright
denial. Deal with that at your leisure.
