Re: [Asrg] Wierd reverse DNS resolution might affect spam filters

[der Mouse <mouse at Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>]

>> That is, given an address, you do an rDNS lookup and get a set of
>> names ([...]).  Do fDNS lookups on those, resulting in a set of
>> addresses for each one; any which do not include the original
>> address in their sets should be discarded.
> Should following CNAMEs be included here?  I can see arguments both
> ways.

I would say CNAME following should be done as normal, both de-jure (the
DNS spec says that CNAMEs should be followed whenever the query type is
neither CNAME nor ANY - see RFC 1034 3.6.2) and de-facto (RFC2317-style
delegation for the reverse, and lots of things for the forward).

I'd be interested in what arguments you see for not following CNAMEs.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg