nanog mailing list archives
Re: comcast ipv6 PTR
From: Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster () mykolab com>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:36:31 -0700
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/9/2013 10:08 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Paul Ferguson<fergdawgster () mykolab com> said:>That's not necessarily true -- some (very large) organizations using >DMARC will reject mail from hosts without a PTR record.
And that's a good reason to have reverse records for you mail servers.
Indeed. :-)
Auto-generated reverse really shouldn't be trusted for anything.
True. :-) - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 10.2.0 (Build 2317) Charset: utf-8 wj8DBQFSVZPSq1pz9mNUZTMRAmVHAKCbyB6whUKbQ5Sl73+TMSE0TRcS5gCdEcZx yXmgvG3kRpJIMRWhNNjUwag= =CvKl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Paul Ferguson Vice President, Threat Intelligence Internet Identity, Tacoma, Washington USA IID --> "Connect and Collaborate" --> www.internetidentity.com
Current thread:
- Re: comcast ipv6 PTR, (continued)
- Re: comcast ipv6 PTR James Cloos (Oct 17)
- Re: comcast ipv6 PTR Mark Andrews (Oct 09)
- Re: comcast ipv6 PTR Barry Shein (Oct 09)
- Re: comcast ipv6 PTR Blair Trosper (Oct 09)
- Re: comcast ipv6 PTR Livingood, Jason (Oct 09)
- Re: comcast ipv6 PTR Constantine A. Murenin (Oct 09)
- Re: comcast ipv6 PTR Chris Adams (Oct 09)
- Re: comcast ipv6 PTR Ted Cooper (Oct 09)