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

[Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Claus Assmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008, Bill Hacker wrote:
>
> > Off topic, but I haven't used an MTA yet (sendmail, postfix, qmail, 
> > courier-mta, exim) .. that checks *websites* for MX or PTR RR's.
>
> What does that have to do with the MTA that rejected the reply?
> If someone rejects mails based on some local rules, then he might
> not receive a reply...

That's not (just) a 'local rule'.

It is a requirement covered in several overlapping/cross-referencing 
RFC's lo these many years. Start with 1035 and 822 and come forward.

> > PacBell - or any other dominant carrier/ISP, IP-block-holder - very well 
> > *will* enter a PTR RR in their DNS (the one that matters)
>
> No, they don't. I asked twice. (I could explain to you why they
> don't give me reverse DNS, but it seems you know better than I what
> to do, so I won't bother).

A finite, but 'Very Large Number' of PacBell customers DO have PTR RR.

If they have denied *you* a PTR RR, there are type/class of service or 
other contractual reasons. Legal, not technical. You get no more than 
what was paid for.

> > It is an embarassingly bad example that deval team members of the 
> > 'senior service' MTA would not heed the RFC on that issue.
>
> Which RFC? Please tell me the number, and quote the text that my
> setup violates.

Find your own text.

'man sendmail'

Look under 'SEE ALSO'.  The RFC's cited (or their replacements) are online.

and/or ..

Google - and eyeball, human, Mark One, type one, class one, standard A - 
connected to an open mind.

Top five or ten hits on 'PTR RR for MTA' should cover it well.

No skin off *my* ass - my MTA are considerably less forgiving than Matt's.

Bill