AT&T refuses to provide PTR records?
blakjak at blakjak.net
Wed Oct 18 09:21:25 UTC 2006
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Jack Bates wrote:
> Mike Walter wrote:
>> We have a customer that has AT&T and they reassigned the IP space to our
>> name servers to allow us to do reverse DNS for them.
> We had a similar situation. AT&T states that they will only handle rDNS using
> domains that they control. They will happily CNAME the IPs appropriately or
> reassign the IP space, depending on block size and request.
> The issue we ran into was that we couldn't get them to *unassign* a CNAME for
> an IP block so that it would fail immediately, and so servers (web,ftp, etc)
> which requested rDNS for the connection information would time out
> connections waiting for the non-existent nameservers. We weren't really
> interested in handling rDNS for the IP given that it wasn't handling mail,
> web, or have any A records pointing to it. It is the easiest way to get it
> done, though.
Surely if you have _a_ matching forward and reverse DNS pair, that'd get
My experience in this game was that you could create mail.xyz.com and
point it to their IP as an A record, and point MX at this - no problems.
So long as the host had a valid and matching forward/reverse DNS entry
there was no grief.
The issue was where there was no matching A/PTR set, this would increase
the likelyhood of a spam host or something... right?
Or is it now a case of A/PTR must match the MX?
More information about the NANOG