Please trim what you quote to the relevant part. On Sat 2003-02-08 at 22:58:05 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 02:59:42AM +0100, Benjamin Pflugmann wrote: [...] > > Although they made the effort to list all the reverse lookups, they > > missed www.nic.de in their list. So if the server makes a connection > > as www.nic.de (which they probably don't do), the other side would end > > up with a different name by the reverse lookup. > > Having a different name on reverse lookup does not block the mail.
If you read my mail again, you will notice that I never said so. I
only said, they will end up with a different name. I only exercised
that example to make clear what the original author claimed in order
to show afterwards that in real the resolving errored out.
Anyhow, saying that a different name on reverse lookups does not block
mail is not complete either. Reverse lookups are common, but there is
no general rule how much consistency applications (not only mail
software) require.
Some do not require any reverse lookup at all, some (as the example
you cite refer to) require only that the reverse lookup is really
possible, and some that a full reverse lookup is consistent, i.e. that
you end up with the name/ip you started with (in your example, a
lookup starting with the ip ends up with the same ip at least).
In short: It's a matter of configuration (whether such a mail will be
accepted or not).
> This message got through from topoi.pooq.com, and it looks up as follows:
[..]
> So although reverse lookip of the IP number gives a different name from
> topoi.pooq.com, when (if?) it looks up that different name it still gets the
> proper IP number. By the way, I'm told that one of the purposes of using
> the reverse name lookup is to catch stolen IP numbers, which apparently
> has been a big problem in some countries.
Bye,
Benjamin.
msg118802/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
