Mail PTR Records

[Glenn Steen]

On 06/03/2008, Peter Farrow <peter at farrows.org> wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote:
>  > 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...)
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
> Just for the record, here is a deinition of "should" given to me today
>  during a trade show:
>
>  "In the UK you *should* drive on the left, in the US and continental
>  Europe you should *drive* on the right.  You can of course drive on the
>  left or right on any road but in the wrong country the consequences
>  could be rather significant."
>
>
>  Enjoy...
>
:-)
Boring thing is that .... since we're talking RFCs (a.k.a. "the
law").... That *shouldn't* be SHOULD, it *should* be MUST:-)

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