Re: [bitfolk] IPv4 reverse DNS

Top Page
Author: Andy Smith
Date:  
To: users
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] IPv4 reverse DNS

Reply to this message
gpg: Signature made Tue Apr 12 10:35:54 2022 UTC
gpg: using DSA key 0E4236CB52951E14536066222099B64CBF15490B
gpg: Good signature from "Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andrew James Smith <andy@strugglers.net>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (UKUUG) <andy.smith@ukuug.org>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (BitFolk Ltd.) <andy@bitfolk.com>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (Linux User Groups UK) <andy@lug.org.uk>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (Cernio Technology Cooperative) <andy.smith@cernio.com>" [unknown]
Hello,

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 10:04:14AM +0100, Kevin Steen wrote:
> On 12/04/2022 08:31, Keith Williams wrote:
> > $ORIGIN 35.84.119.85.in-addr.arpa.


This is not the correct zone name, so Keith is serving a completely
different zone to what is being asked for, which is why queries get
a REFUSED answer.

> > PTR keynesmail.com <http://keynesmail.com>.
> > PTR www.keynesmail.com <http://www.keynesmail.com>.
> > PTR mx10.keynesmail.com <http://mx10.keynesmail.com>.
> > PTR webmail.keynesmail.com <http://webmail.keynesmail.com>.
>
> I don't think multiple PTR records are valid - there can be only one, which
> may be confusing the receiving software.


It is valid in DNS but there are some cases of mail servers that
don't understand this, and only process the first answer, which is
usually random.

As it is mostly only a cosmetic thing, and there's no issue with
having one host e.g. mail.example.com that also does HELO as
mail.example.com, I do recommend sticking to just one PTR record.

It's just that some people host mail for e.g. foo.com and bar.com
and want no mention at all of bar.com in the records and HELO for
foo.com and vice versa, so they add matching names for everything.

Cheers,
Andy

--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting