On January 17, 2010 3:16:54 PM -0600 Stan Hoeppner <s...@hardwarefreak.com>
wrote:
Have you been in prison or incapacitated for the last few years Frank?
You seem to be out of touch with many established standards/norms.
Indeed I have. One of those. :)
Also I question "established" norms because times change and often they
don't make sense "now". For example default TCP timers are horribly
outdated for today's networks.
First you argue for multiple PTR records for mail sending hosts. Then
you argue that no PTR should be required for mail sending hosts. You've
just proposed both extremes of the debate, yet the debate on this was
over long ago, and everyone else is right in the middle: one PTR
required for a mail sending host.
I did not argue for multiple PTR records for mail or any other host.
Please re-read all my messages on the subject if you care to take the
time. I merely argued for *postfix support* for multiple PTR records.
In fact I think multiple PTR records (even for the one case I found
which does require it -- zeroconf) are idiotic and *if* I were to argue
either way it would be against it. But at the same time, I don't
believe postfix should reject clients with multiple PTR records (and
now I know it doesn't).
And even now, I haven't argued for no PTR records either. I've merely
asked what is the reason to require a PTR record. I disagreed with
the first reply that it's a valid anti-spam filter, however I didn't
put forth any opinion on whether or not I think (a single) PTR record
is useful for some other reason. I was trying to find out what people's
thoughts are on it. I can see where you might imply what my opinion of
them is however but let me assure you I have not made up my mind yet.
Please stick to responding to the actual question posed. :)
I'll read the rest of the thread before replying further.
-frank
