RE: Reverse dns

["Edward Ray" <support () mmicman com>]

RFC1912 2.1 says you should have a reverse DNS for all your mail servers. 


Edward W. Ray
CISSP, MCSE 2003+Security, P.E. GCIA, GCIH
NetSec Design & Consulting 

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk
[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk] On Behalf Of Paul Schmehl
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 7:58 AM
To: full-disclosure () lists grok org uk
Subject: [Full-disclosure] Reverse dns

Is there an RFC *requirement* for reverse dns?

I've been looking through the RFCs and I can't find it.  Some folks think
reverse dns should be completely disabled.  I know for sure that this will
break email, because many mail servers won't talk to a server that doesn't
reverse.  Tcpdump also doesn't like hosts that won't reverse.

What I'm looking for is a standard (RFC) that states that enabling reverse
lookups is *required* or reverse lookups are *optional*.  If they're
optional, then reverse could be disabled for most hosts.

I'm also looking for a list of things that *break* when you disable reverse
(e.g. mail).

RULES FOR RESPONDING:
1) "Reverse is a good thing" is not an answer.  Neither is "Reverse is a bad
thing".
2) Opinions are not useful -  stick to facts only - chapter and verse
please.
3) All replies to the list please - others will find this useful as well.

Paul Schmehl (pauls () utdallas edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://www.secunia.com/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://www.secunia.com/