Martin A. Brooks wrote:
> On Tue, April 13, 2010 23:38, W B Hacker wrote:
>> In RFC 822 et seq, how do you interpet the 'MUST' with regard to;
>>
>> "6. SUPPORT SERVICES
>>
>>
>> 6.1 DOMAIN NAME TRANSLATION
>>
>> 6.1.1 INTRODUCTION
>>
>> Every host MUST implement a resolver for the Domain Name System
>> (DNS), and it MUST implement a mechanism using this DNS
>> resolver to convert host names to IP addresses and vice-versa
>> [DNS:1, DNS:2].
>> "
>>
>> also summarized in tabular form in 6.1.5
>>
>> How can it accomplish that both way lookup requirement if there are no
>> records
>> with which to do so?
>
> It doesn't say a host MUST succeed at resolving, it says it MUST provide a
> mechanism by which an attempt at resolving can be made.
And what pray tell is that 'mechanism' if not including a PTR RR?
Do note that a PTR RR is one of the 'will have..' records in the RFC on DNS...
And in other places...
You can publish useless ones if you like... or default to a residential/SME
dynamic adsl upstream 'generic'. Also useless, and only marginally 'legal'.
Classed as a 'placeholder' IIRC = and refused by many.
Either of those steps would save me two LBL block rules in the idiot file, so -
please - put your config where your viewpoint is and .. 'suck it and see' as
they say.
>
> That's a very very different thing to what you seem to interpret it to mean.
>
Only 'coz my users like to be able to exchange messages with the rest of the
world that DOES 'believe' in the RFC's. The 'major' carriers and ISP's.
Feel free to ignore those... also.
