<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.28.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 07:55 +0000, Anand Kumria wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
>
> RFC 1912, Section 2.1 says every Internet-reachable host should have a name
> and "Make sure your PTR and A records match" and "For every IP address,
> there should be matching PTR record in the in-addr.arpa domain"
>
> its DNS 101
Note that it is not a *MUST* requirement, nor even a *SHOULD*.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
And, frankly, _depending_ upon PTR records in 2013 is just plain daft.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
I beg to differ, those who usually bitch about this are the ones caught out for not giving a damn about their network, and yes same enforcement is and should be applied to ipv6.<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
% host -t mx gmail.com
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
and since when have Google done everything compliant?<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
I realise that this doesn't help the OP but I just wanted to ensure
that people know that PTR records are a defining anti-spam mechanism
are very outdated.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
really? outdated? I beg to differ, again, over 90 %, yes 90%, less work my anti spam stuff has to do for blocking the incompetent people in this industry who don't know how to do DNS, and seeing as how I myself have been taking this approach for nearly twenty odd years, I think I know the net results are justified.<BR>
<BR>
ignorance and laziness are not a defence.<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>