multiple PTR records

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 it's easy for

Re: multiple PTR records

On January 12, 2010 11:07:25 AM -0600 "/dev/rob0" wrote: It's hard to focus on what you said when we don't know what you said. :) I thought it was pretty clear. :) On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:27:43AM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote: After searching the mailing list (and the we

Re: multiple PTR records

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 impose postfix's sense of order on the world. Well, I

Re: multiple PTR records

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

Re: THREAD STILL CLOSED: (was Re: multiple PTR records)

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

client disconnects at CONNECT (multiple PTR problem?)

My postfix-2.6.5 is rejecting mail from a host which has a large PTR RRset -- 44 entries and large enough to require TCP. host/dig/nslookup actually dumps core on my solaris box (looks like the bug was fixed in BIND just a few months ago). I don't know for sure that it is the PTR records that are

Re: multiple PTR records

On January 12, 2010 12:28:10 PM -0600 Stan Hoeppner wrote: 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 disadvanta

Re: How to not reject valid MTAs for inconsistent forward/reverse DNS.

On January 12, 2010 1:33:46 PM -0500 Victor Duchovni wrote: On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 01:12:52PM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote: 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 fail

Re: client disconnects at CONNECT (multiple PTR problem?)

On January 12, 2010 2:49:32 PM -0600 "/dev/rob0" wrote: On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 03:02:37PM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote: My postfix-2.6.5 is rejecting mail from a host which has a large Not according to what we see below. "Lost connection" does not mean you rejected them.

Re: multiple PTR records

On January 12, 2010 2:52:58 PM -0600 Stan Hoeppner wrote: Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 2:29 PM: Is it your opinion that the disadvantages I've described aren't valid? When it comes to multiple PTRs on a single email emitting IP, yes, it is my opinion that that the disadva

Re: client disconnects at CONNECT (multiple PTR problem?)

On January 12, 2010 3:10:12 PM -0600 Noel Jones wrote: On 1/12/2010 2:02 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: My postfix-2.6.5 is rejecting mail from a host which has a large PTR RRset -- 44 entries and large enough to require TCP. host/dig/nslookup actually dumps core on my solaris box (looks like the bug

Re: How to not reject valid MTAs for inconsistent forward/reverse DNS.

On January 12, 2010 5:59:58 PM -0500 Victor Duchovni wrote: You latched onto a red-herring, it is far wiser to report accurate symptoms than to speculate about theoretical causes of unreported behaviour. Sure, and that's the reason I started 2 threads. I thought my first one was totally legit

Re: How to not reject valid MTAs for inconsistent forward/reverse DNS.

On January 13, 2010 8:16:36 AM -0600 Stan Hoeppner wrote: Frank Cusack put forth on 1/12/2010 9:46 PM: I think it all ended well though? Except my problem still exists. :\ We know things break when that hosts sends mail to you. What happens when you send mail to that host? Do you see the

Re: How to not reject valid MTAs for inconsistent forward/reverse DNS.

On January 13, 2010 12:27:02 PM -0500 Wietse Venema wrote: Frank Cusack: Contrary to what I said earlier, tcpdump is in fact interesting. I see a 3 way handshake, and that's it. 10 minutes later, a reset. However postfix logs a disconnect immediately. I do notice that their mss is

Re: multiple PTR records

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

tigertech mirror broken

US, CA, Bay area goes to a landing page, not a postfix download mirror

Re: How to not reject valid MTAs for inconsistent forward/reverse DNS.

Solved ... On January 13, 2010 1:06:10 PM -0500 Wietse Venema wrote: Well, if you can provide unmodified evidence, then people can look into this. Yeah unfortunately as I said, I couldn't do that. And anyway I wasn't looking for folks to fix my problem so much as have the discussion so I co

Re: How to not reject valid MTAs for inconsistent forward/reverse DNS.

On January 16, 2010 9:39:26 AM -0500 Wietse Venema wrote: Frank Cusack: until a name lookup has been done. But if that name lookup takes a "very long" time, along with the connect postfix should log how long ago the actual connect was. The SMTP server can find out long the na

Re: How to not reject valid MTAs for inconsistent forward/reverse DNS.

On January 12, 2010 1:33:46 PM -0500 Victor Duchovni wrote: Don't use "reject_unknown_client_hostname" indiscriminantly. Ironically, enough time has passed that I now received a bounce from Stan, due to my smtp host not having a PTR record. (It was a 450 and finally my smtp server gave up.)

Re: How to not reject valid MTAs for inconsistent forward/reverse DNS.

On January 17, 2010 12:37:46 PM -0800 "Daniel V. Reinhardt" wrote: A proper ISP and Host would have the proper PTR Records set up thus validating the said sender as being part of a reputable ISP or Host. Most of the spammers I have come across have improper DNS Records set up meaning no name loo

Re: How to not reject valid MTAs for inconsistent forward/reverse DNS.

On January 17, 2010 3:16:54 PM -0600 Stan Hoeppner 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 oft

Re: How to not reject valid MTAs for inconsistent forward/reverse DNS.

On January 17, 2010 12:37:46 PM -0800 "Daniel V. Reinhardt" wrote: A proper ISP and Host would have the proper PTR Records set up thus validating the said sender as being part of a reputable ISP or Host. I am a "proper" host with a "proper" ISP. Yet I do not have a PTR record for this particu

relay_recipient_maps doesn't ignore address extensions

I can't get the relay_recipient_maps lookup to ignore the address extension part of a recipient email address. It's very difficult to use address extensions together with relay_recipient_maps this way. Am I missing some configuration setting? I've been searching for it for about an hour. -frank

Re: relay_recipient_maps doesn't ignore address extensions

figured it out -- just after sending this. isn't that always the way? i didn't have recipient_delimiter set on the MX host. On December 28, 2009 1:05:09 AM -0500 Frank Cusack wrote: I can't get the relay_recipient_maps lookup to ignore the address extension part of a recipien