ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article

2003-05-06 16:50:21
With respect to rDNS, my practice has been to establish only a single canonical 
name to that addresses reverse map.  I do not see a need to attach more than 
one name.  I don't disagree that an IP may have multiple forward maps to 
accommodate 'web-hosting' but to me reverse maps have little or nothing to do 
with web hosts.  I see utility for rDNS where protocols attempting to validate 
a presented name e.g. myhost.home.net is the expected name at the reverse map, 
i.e.. using ssh, ftp, telnet or smtp.  MTAs SHOULD have and use only a 
canonical name and not an alias, I feel that it is equally appropriate for the 
reverse map of an MTA host.

That's my bugaboo, like I said it is a preference, I thought was a best 
practice as well.  Although obviously it is not a 'rule' of any sort.  Were I 
serving domains in the fashion you present I would most likely have a different 
view as well.

-e

On Tuesday, May 06, 2003 5:15 PM, Bob Atkinson 
[SMTP:bobatk(_at_)Exchange(_dot_)Microsoft(_dot_)com] wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Eric D.
Williams
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 1:34 PM
To: 'Vernon Schryver'; asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article

It introduces the possibility for "additional" mis-configuration, as
does
RMX.
 The point is that an IP address, I think, SHOULD have only one
canonical
name.

I find this odd: IP addresses with which I am familiar routinely have
many names that resolve to the address: they serve many web domains, for
example, or send and receive mail on behalf of several domains. I don't
understand which of these several domains could reasonably be considered
more equal than others and thus the ONE such canonical name.

      Bob
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg