To:
dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Date:
Tue, 15 Aug 2000 06:43:39 -0700
In-Reply-To:
<20000815145216U.liman@sunet.se>; from Lars-Johan Liman on Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 02:52:16PM +0200
Mail-Followup-To:
dnsop@cafax.se
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: wrt: draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-00.txt
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 02:52:16PM +0200, Lars-Johan Liman wrote: > Is the behaviour to check and verify reverse lookup something that we > really want to encourage? Then why? There are lots of legal situations > where the forward lookup mismatches the reverse lookup, Named virtual hosts (where one IP serves many virtual domains, and only one of them could be the proper in-addr, and the browser supplied name is used to disambiguate). There are millions of these. Most of them are used only for web sites with email, and web servers and email servers typically don't do the check that Randy describes (what's the inverse address of a mx record?) So for web and email, you can't require in-addr. In any case, the number of domains with no in-addr is huge, and will remain so. -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain