On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:15:16 -0900, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wednesday 22 November 2006 22:04, Bob Proulx wrote: >> But in this case it is an example of poor form for the forward and >> reverse dns not to match. If you are running a mail server this is >> one of the things that should be set up properly for it. When that is >> fixed then the rule won't trigger on it as a side-effect of doing the >> right thing. > >Well thats all fine and dandy for you to pontificate, but there >are MANY bandwidth providers that do not let you control >your reverse EVEN when you buy a static IP for your >mailserver. This is an ongoing issue I have some sympathy with. Both sides of the argument are valid. The problem is with the ISP's, after all it's not a big deal to stick an rDNS in. I only found out my isp offered it (free) when my IP popped up in SORBS. After some very lengthy calls it got resolved. It's worth hassling your ISP. If they want to sell 'business' packages then an rDNS *should* be part of the deal (imo). If your current ISP won't do it, switch to one that will, they are out there. I'm surprised none seem to use it as a selling point. Nigel
