Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #1491
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.networking |
|---|---|
| From | Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid> |
| Subject | Re: "Timeout" DNS IP to name resolution |
| References | (1 earlier) <v1phb9xvie.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk> <js5p5d02bgf@news3.newsguy.com> <0g9jb9xf9.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk> <slrnjueetk.k4l.ibuprofin@fermi.phx.az.us> <js7r2d02o7k@news6.newsguy.com> |
| Message-ID | <slrnjufb7p.mtc.ibuprofin@fermi.phx.az.us> (permalink) |
| Date | 2012-06-24 19:12 -0500 |
On 24 Jun 2012, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
article <js7r2d02o7k@news6.newsguy.com>, buck wrote:
>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid> wrote
>> It seems that things fall into three main classes:
>> 1. That information is SECRET - I don't want you to know it
>> 2. It's too HARD to set up
>> 3. What's a reverse zone
>> This has been an on-going problem for many years - mail
>> administrators often configure their mail servers to reject mail
>> from systems that don't resolve, or where the forward and reverse
>> names don't match up. See question 3.22 in the Sendmail-FAQ as
>> one example.
>My reading of 1035 says NO, reverse is not required, but others
>disagree so what do I know?!
Don't forget that the RFCs are written to create interoperability.
There is no such thing as the Internet Police to enforce them.
>All the RFCs I read that talk about Email say that rDNS is NOT
>required, so I presume that the same goes for http.
Correct - you have to understand that the Internet is a cooperative
grouping of networks. Barring some legal contract between entities,
there is nothing that _requires_ network A to carry traffic to/from
network B. A frequently heard statement in the now defunct Usenet
newsgroup "news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting" was "my network - my
rules". A lot of network abuse was reported from systems and/or
networks that failed to had working or matching name resolution, and
that's why some admins made "proper DNS" as a pre-requisite for
receiving mail (or even just traffic).
Old guy
Back to comp.os.linux.networking | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
"Timeout" DNS IP to name resolution buck <buck@private.mil> - 2012-06-23 17:56 +0000
Re: "Timeout" DNS IP to name resolution Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2012-06-23 22:29 +0100
Re: "Timeout" DNS IP to name resolution buck <buck@private.mil> - 2012-06-24 01:05 +0000
Re: "Timeout" DNS IP to name resolution Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2012-06-24 11:52 +0200
Re: "Timeout" DNS IP to name resolution Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2012-06-24 12:15 +0100
Re: "Timeout" DNS IP to name resolution Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid> - 2012-06-24 11:09 -0500
Re: "Timeout" DNS IP to name resolution buck <buck@private.mil> - 2012-06-24 19:50 +0000
Re: "Timeout" DNS IP to name resolution Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid> - 2012-06-24 19:12 -0500
Re: "Timeout" DNS IP to name resolution J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2012-06-25 10:22 +0000
Re: "Timeout" DNS IP to name resolution MJ <me@invalid.org> - 2012-06-27 07:44 +0000
Re: "Timeout" DNS IP to name resolution buck <buck@private.mil> - 2012-06-29 17:00 +0000
Re: "Timeout" DNS IP to name resolution Joe Beanfish <joebeanfish@nospam.duh> - 2012-06-29 15:43 -0400
Re: "Timeout" DNS IP to name resolution buck <buck@private.mil> - 2012-06-30 20:04 +0000
Re: "Timeout" DNS IP to name resolution Martijn Lievaart <m@rtij.nl.invlalid> - 2012-06-30 00:58 +0200
csiph-web