Re: sendmail 8.14 has a serious memory corruption bug in it

[Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matthew Dillon wrote:
>     Uh, Bill, I think you are misinterpreting the thread.  He's simply saying
>     that PacBell won't assign reverse DNS for his IP.  It has nothing to do
>     with RFC's, sendmail, or anything else.
>
> 						-Matt


I beg to differ ...

Yes - not being willing [1] AND able to *get* a PTR RR is one issue [2].

But criticising an MTA admin (your server...) - especially in this day 
and age - for not accepting traffic for lack of valid DNS (in general) 
and PTR RR in particular, I quote:

>> "If someone rejects mails based on some local rules, then he might
>> not receive a reply..."

. .. and not being inherently aware that this is no mere 'local rule' but 
RFC AND BCP,

. .. is head-up-and-locked behaviour from the general public - and badly 
in need of enlightenment in the case of anyone involved in devel of what 
remains the most heavily-used MTA on the planet (sendmail).

Sendmail CAN and generally DOES do the right thing - when configured by 
those 'aware' - and the sendmail docs show the way.

Otherwise, bitching that a(ny) mailadmin should let down essential 
guards is simply no longer an option. Too many WinCrobes, too little 
bandwidth...

;-)

and this is all old-hat on various MTA mailing lists, deosn't really 
belong here 'atall'.

Regards,

Bill

[1] Lest we forget, it was this very same rejection - from *your* server 
in fact, that caused me a year or three ago to get off my own lazy 
backside, send an e-mail, follow-up by phone...

. . and get a PTR RR into place for *my* MTA in just about five 
wall-clock minutes.

OTOH, we did/do have the appropriate grade of service contract - a full 
rack in a data center with 24x7 admin staff on-site.

[2] Or using the ISP's host when you cannot get what you know you need.