Mail PTR Records

[Matt Kettler]

Glenn Steen wrote:
> On 04/03/2008, Glenn Steen <glenn.steen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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:-)
>>
> Ah, I see you all thought this through while I was out carousing in
> Copenhagen...

Indeed, it boiled down to a mis-application of RFC 2821.

> 
>>  >  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.
> At some point in time, I think most people (like us:-) have had a ....
> humbling.... "RFC incident":)

I still prefer to think of myself as a bit of a child and not a "big man" (I 
have a distinctly impish nature at times). However I am a child that is 
reasonable and I generally learn well from past mistakes.

I'm pretty much always willing to admit when I'm wrong or accept I might be 
wrong, but I'll fight tooth and nail to prove out the facts :-) How else will I 
ever find out the details and learn from them?

So try not to confuse my tenacious pursuit of facts as a personal need to be 
right... Generally I don't care if I'm right or not, I just need to know what IS 
right, and I will fight to discover it. :-)

(And I do greatly appreciate those who will indulge such pursuits...)