It was written...
> And good for them, I say. Too many places have been sloppy about rDNS
> for too long.
I agree, to a point. The powers that be FINALLY required reverse entries for
everything, utilized or not. That is a good thing. However, refusing an RFC
sanctioned query return is "bad".
> Provides aliases in the sense of returning multiple PTRs, or in the
> sense of passing through a CNAME? I mention this because you say
If the reverse lookup returns a real fixed hostname that matches the forward
lookup, but it still ALSO lists aliases, they refuse it. That is silly.
> I note that your list message was emitted from 209.83.143.147.
Everything you mention here is not what I was referring to - because the
mail you checked was sent from a customer site who I do not handle DNS for
:) I was referring to my hosting/colocation business which does get
delegation on even subnet boundaries.
Jay West
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
Received on Wed Feb 18 2004 - 12:13:11 GMT