Reverse DNS RFCs and Recommendations

[cite+nanog at incertum.net (Stefan Förster)]

* Nolan Rollo <nrollo at kw-corp.com>:
> It seems like the unspoken de facto that mail admins appreciate
> given the IP 203.0.113.15 is
> "203-0-113-15.[type].[static/dynamic].yourdomain.tld". This seems
> perfectly acceptable, it's short, detailed and to the point. Is
> there really anything bad about this?

Mail admins wanting matching forward/reverse DNS and hostnames that
don't "look dynamically generated" is probably more of a human than an
RFC thing: "We used to get a lot of spam from dialup IPs, or IPs
without matching reverse DNS, so let's reject anything that comes from
an IP without FcRDNS and greylist anything with more than X dashes and
Y dots in it's hostname."


Stefan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20131031/22c6d41e/attachment.bin>