Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt

[Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, Markus Stumpf wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 01:21:57PM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
> > E.g., let's assume that there's a "People with computers MUST
> > populate the reverse tree" and I don't.  Who's going to come after
> > me?  How is my failure to meet that MUST going to impact the rest of
> > the network (where's the interoperability)?
>
> Maybe after a while it will be hurting you more than the rest of the
> net. Not so many years ago a lot of public information servers (e.g.
> FTP, gopher, http) sent you away if your RR didn't work. Some even had
> paranoid settings enabled to that forward and reverse had to match.

I have yet to see this capability in most FTP, gopher, or http server
software.  Without the capability, it can't even be configured. While the
capability could exist in some software somewhere, I have yet to
experience or get a complaint of an FTP, gopher, or http server refusing
connection for this reason. The only service that I have ever seen use
this to refuse connections was SMTP, and there are very few doing that.
Most didn't do it for long.

I think what has happened is that there is a small contingent pushing for
reverse, and there is a much larger contingent that doesn't do reverse,
perhaps just to spite the smaller group, or perhaps because it is
inconvenient, or in other cases (I have some) where multihomed mailservers
have different forward and reverse names, so the while there are in-addr
records, they don't match as the small contingent thinks they ought.  Of
course, the records still serve a convenience function for my purposes.

		--Dean

#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.