On January 12, 2010 4:19:50 PM -0500 Frank Cusack
wrote:
I can't think of a scenario for ANY type of server that would *require*
multiple PTR records.
I coincidentally just came across such a case. zeroconf uses multiple
PTR records. Not in .in-addr.arpa zones, so you don't u
equire*
multiple PTR records. Not that they are infallible, but certainly
neither did the presumably smarter-than-any-of-us guys that designed
the new IPv6-friendlier getinfo() interfaces.
But I also can't think of a reason to not handle it.
-frank
Postfix supports clients with multiple PT
ntages you describe are not valid. As a
matter of fact, I don't know of a scenario that would *require* an email
emitting IP to have multiple PTRs. Can you post such a scenario?
I can't think of a scenario for ANY type of server that would *require*
multiple PTR records. Not that they
Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 2:29 PM:
> Not to be rude, but I'm not sure why you asked me the question in the
> first place. It was in fact a great question. Your response however
> was merely to dismiss my problem. So it seems like your question was
> just rhetoric designed to sink this
ge
to accepting multiple PTR records. There is only a downside.
What's the downside Frank?
Good question.
I can't accept mail from hosts with multiple PTR records without manually
whitelisting them. Additionally, I can't even tell that I'm experiencing
a failure until it is repo
Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 12:12 PM:
> On January 12, 2010 12:09:28 PM -0600 Stan Hoeppner
> wrote:
>> Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 12:04 PM:
>>
>>> I don't know why you would thank Wietse when there is no disadvantage
>>> to accepti
On January 12, 2010 1:10:51 PM -0500 Victor Duchovni
wrote:
If you have a specific use case in which you need guidance to configure
Postfix, please start a new thread, without the polemics.
That is why I stated originally, for my specific problem case I will be
writing in another thread. I am
On January 12, 2010 12:09:28 PM -0600 Stan Hoeppner
wrote:
Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 12:04 PM:
I don't know why you would thank Wietse when there is no disadvantage
to accepting multiple PTR records. There is only a downside.
What's the downside Frank?
Good question
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 01:04:56PM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
> On January 12, 2010 12:24:20 PM -0500 Frank Cusack
> wrote:
>> Apparently it only "honors" the first PTR record that getnameinfo()
>> returns to it. Additionally this appears to be a conscious decision
>> and in part designed to im
Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 12:04 PM:
> I don't know why you would thank Wietse when there is no disadvantage
> to accepting multiple PTR records. There is only a downside.
What's the downside Frank?
--
Stan
philosophy, be liberal in what you accept.
Note: I agree that a single PTR record is better. My opinion is
irrelevant.
I don't know why you would thank Wietse when there is no disadvantage
to accepting multiple PTR records. There is only a downside.
-frank
Quoting Frank Cusack :
Apparently it only "honors" the first PTR record that getnameinfo()
returns to it. Additionally this appears to be a conscious decision
and in part designed to impose postfix's sense of order on the world.
-frank
In this case at least, I think, "postfix's sense of o
b in general) what I
can gather about multiple PTR records is that postfix is adamant
that hosts should not have multiple PTR records.
Who cares?
In other words,
Why does postfix not handle hosts with multiple PTR records correctly?
Apparently it only "honors" the first PTR record th
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:27:43AM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
> After searching the mailing list (and the web in general) what I
> can gather about multiple PTR records is that postfix is adamant
> that hosts should not have multiple PTR records.
>
> Who cares? It's l
this one focused
> on the policy around multiple PTR records.
Just start the other thread if it is on topic. No point in starting
a flame war instead.
THREAD CLOSED.
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To&
After searching the mailing list (and the web in general) what I can
gather about multiple PTR records is that postfix is adamant that
hosts should not have multiple PTR records.
Who cares? It's like saying DNS names should not have underscores or
spaces.
Yes we don't like it, but
16 matches
Mail list logo
