Re: [tlug] Reverse DNS Delegatation

[Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>]

On 2013-07-19 14:16 +0900 (Fri), Pier Fumagalli wrote:

> * you MUST an SPF record in your domain's DNS allowing the IP you're
> sending from as a designated sender (just because it's 2013).

I see no reason you must have such a record, and there are many
instances (such as my own) where you would certainly not want such a
record.

Keep in mind SPF is designed to protect the *sender* of non-spam
messages from specific domains from bounceback from spam messages sent
in his name. (The sender is basically providing a guarantee that he will
relay outgoing messages from his domains from only from certain hosts.)
It is not designed to protect the recipients.

> * you MUST have some MX records for the domain in questions....

Err...which domain name are you talking about here? It's perfectly
reasonable for a mail server that sends mail to have a DNS name that
does not accept any mail whatsoever (and where mail is never sent out
with that name).

On 2013-07-19 09:56 -0300 (Fri), SCHWARTZ, Fernando G. wrote:

> Not too long ago I had this VMware's Zimbra appliance (well, as of this
> week not VMware's anymore) that we decided to change to a new up stream
> provider. The reason I take this as example is because was fairly
> "out-of-the-box", all underlying services enabled and a tracking record
> of good working order.....

What is this "tracking record" you speak of?

> I watched on web console this 15k plus messages being held up in queue....
> Was sitting there live, online. The minute they committed the "rDNS"
> record change, things started to follow again.

This could be related to this "tracking record" thing you're using that
was forcing to make other configuration changes that would otherwise be
unnecessary.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson         <cjs@example.com>         +81 90 7737 2974

To iterate is human, to recurse divine.
    - L Peter Deutsch