In <49c0b85a.6020...@smiffytech.com>, Matthew Smith wrote: >Quoth Bob Cox at 2009-03-18 18:39... >> The question is whether you should be rejecting email from any user >> @act.gov.au just because act.gov.au does not resolve. >Tempting though it is, rejecting mail on the basis of RFC-non compliance > is NOT a good move.
<div class="militant"> BS. Grow a spine, stand up for the standards, and kick non-compliant mail to the curb. If enough people do it, others will follow. </div> In any case, this mail does appear to be RFC compliant. act.gov.au has an MX record, "10 mail.act.gov.au". mail.act.gov.au has an A record, "136.153.4.2". 2.4.153.136.in-addr.arpa has a PTR record, "mail.dpa.act.gov.au". And mail.dpa.act.gov.au has an A record of "136.153.4.2". -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
