RE: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article

["Eric D. Williams" <eric@infobro.com>]

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@Exchange.Microsoft.com] wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asrg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:asrg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Eric D.
> > Williams
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 1:34 PM
> > To: 'Vernon Schryver'; asrg@ietf.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@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg