Mail PTR Records

[Richard Frovarp]

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.
>
>   
The issue is you'll see people break the RFC's because they are upset 
someone else broke another part of the RFC's. Becomes a bit hypocritical.