Mail PTR Records

[Matt Kettler]

mikea wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 01:15:21PM -0600, Nathan Olson wrote:
>> It's not RFC-compliant.
> 
> As has been mentioned elsethread, a number of techniques which are 
> increasingly necessary for survival are not RFC-compliant. 
> 
> Many RFCs were written when the Internet was kinder, gentler, and MUCH
> less dangerous than it is now. They have not changed, though the 'Net
> certainly has. Blind adherence to them in the face of evidence that 
> that adherence opens windows of vulnerability is not necessarily dood
> or wise.

Well, that alone isn't a good reason to blindly toss RFC's aside. Some 
requirements of the RFCs are there for damn good reasons.

However, in this case I suspect the activity isn't even a violation of an RFC, 
and not having a PTR record clearly violates their recommendations (albeit not 
their requirements).

In general, it's really easy to claim something isn't complaint with the RFCs 
without any evidence to support it. We should all take such suggestions 
(including those generated by me) as unsubstantiated opinions until proven 
otherwise..