Re: [Full-disclosure] Reverse dns

[Danny <nocmonkey@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:57:57 -0600, Paul Schmehl <pauls@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Is there an RFC *requirement* for reverse dns?

No.  

> I've been looking through the RFCs and I can't find it.

Right.

> Some folks think reverse dns should be completely disabled.

I wonder if these are the same folks who ignore most other best practices.

> I know for sure that this will break email, because many mail servers won't 
> talk to a server
> that doesn't reverse.

For this reason, it is recommended (by me and many others) - but not
required - to implement valid reverse DNS for the IP addresses of your
SMTP servers.

[..]
> I'm also looking for a list of things that *break* when you disable reverse
> (e.g. mail).

Why disable it?

> RULES FOR RESPONDING:
> 1) "Reverse is a good thing" is not an answer.  Neither is "Reverse is a
> bad thing".

Check.

> 2) Opinions are not useful -  stick to facts only - chapter and verse
> please.

2 out of 3.

> 3) All replies to the list please - others will find this useful as well.

3 out of 3.  Time for me to pick-up a lottery ticket.

...D
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://www.secunia.com/