Mail PTR Records

[Glenn Steen]

On 03/03/2008, Matt Kettler <mkettler at evi-inc.com> wrote:
> Nathan Olson wrote:
>  > It's not RFC-compliant.
>
>
> Please point out the RFC and section it violates.
>
>  AFAIK, there's no section that prohibits refusing mail due to lack of PTR
>  records for the IP address.
It might be that Nathan interpretes the "address verification" bit as
doing any form of DNS.... which actually might be the "spirit" of all
that.... Hm.... Need sleep and time to think on this:-)

>  I've been proved wrong before, but I'm extraordinarily skeptical that there's
>  any such restrictions in the RFCs.. I can find no mention of such a restriction
>  in RFC 821, 2821 or 1123.
:-) You're a big man, Matt.

>
>  On the contrary, RFC 1912 section 2.1 directly tells you that that not having a
>  PTR record could lead to services refusing to talk to your hosts.
>
>  Also, RFC 1912 states that all IP address should have have a PTR record
>  associated with them in the in-addr.arpa space.
>
>  So, the documentation I can find in the RFCs suggests that blocking connections
>  from hosts which lack PTR records is legal and should be expected.
>
Interresting implications there...:-)

Cheers
-- 
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se