Re: [cobalt-users] RAQ2 - Still Can't send mail to AOL HELP!

["E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 12:38:05 -0800
> From: Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Is there any reason Eddy, why you're using a post of mine to make your
> own, and by extension, look like I'm wrong and you're right?  It looks
> like we're saying the same thing.

I don't see how anything I said "makes it look like your
wrong"... there would have to be some sort of contradiction where
I provide more/better evidence.  But I see no conflict.

> It doesn't look like you're disagreeing with anything I've written, so
> I'm wondering.

No disagreement... your message seemed to be the most logical one
to give more details.  Too much caffeine?  Not enough?  Are your
posts sacred?  I think that this is the first time someone ever
questioned (challenged?) why I chose their post to respond...

> > > That's because your upstream (whoever provided you your
> > > IP#s) did NOT delegate your IP#s to you.  I've been pointing
> > > out on this list for at least three years that you cannot do
> > > your own reverse DNS unless your upstream provider gives you
> > > the authority.
> > 
> > DNS debunked:  Who cares about "whois".  The information there
> > isn't worth <insert favorite phrase> when it comes to name
> > resolution.
> 
> And what has your response got to do with my paragraph?  Anything at
> all?

Feh.  I must have snipped out a transitional paragraph or two of
mine, been half asleep, lost my train of thought while debugging,
yada yada yada...

Quick summary/replacement in case anyone is still following the
thread:

	Forward DNS is delegated via an authority chain.  When
	one registers a domain... root --> gTLD --> authority.
	Reverse works the same way.

	The [intended] point was that DNS isn't magic.  Both
	forward and reverse are delegated until they reach the
	authority.  This is is poorly understood for forward, and
	even more poorly understood for reverse -- although the
	mechanism is the same.

	'Whois' is not the mechanism by which authoritative DNS
	servers are named, contrary to popular belief.  It's
	delegation, which is handled entirely via the DNS system.

Thanks for pointing this one out to me.  I think you're wound a
bit too tight on the other issues, but your points there were
well taken.

Yes, I know how to respond in context. ;-)

> > > Yes.  Definitely.  AOLs behavior in not forwarding mail when
> > > there's no reverse DNS is extremely well known and well
> > > documented.
> > 
> > Nor is AOL the only one.  The most prominent example, perhaps,
> > but several sites refuse mail with absent reverse DNS.
> 
> As I've written before as well.  Is it necessary to talk about the rest
> of the world when the specific question is about AOL?  Maybe.

The OP indicated that the problem was AOL-specific.  I doubt that
it actually was.

Your point about having posted something before?  Rare is it that
I post something once and never again.  I'd wager that half a
dozen of us on here have posted the same responses a few score
times -- on DNS issues alone.

Considering that threads get recycled on a monthly basis,
something that someone posted several months ago is probably
forgotten.  Shall we all point out where "hey, I posted that
before" with any given thread?  Sounds silly to me...

> > > Either your upstream delegates reverse DNS authority to you, or
> > > he does reverse DNS, or you find another provider.
> > 
> > Watch out for upstreams that claim it's a major, expensive
> > operation to do.  It isn't.  If your provider claims that it'll
> > take a week and a few hundred dollars, it's time to go shopping.
> > Tell them to read RFC 2317.
> 
> First of all, if your upstream doesn't have authority they can't
> delegate it.  Second, if they do have authority, they're responsible for

Obviously.  (I hope, anyway.)

> it being done correctly.  Personally considering the sad state of DNS
> knowledge among Cobalt/Sun RaQ users I wouldn't automatically delegate
> DNS to any of them unless they could prove they have the understanding
> to do it right.

Agreed.

I can tell a few stories about people who forced NS authority to
themselves, but had it set up improperly.  Suddenly, hosed DNS
(in these specific cases) means that they can't accept mail on
their POC handles to transfer it back.  And they wondered why
things broke...

> Note that I'm NOT blaming any RaQ owner/user.  The fact is that Cobalt
> doesn't implement it well, and doesn't explain it well, and doesn't
> explain well where to go to learn to do it right.

Yup.  The "plug it in and turn it on" claims are not true.  Why
not build a CGI tool that generates reverse DNS from forward
info, and digs to see who is authoritative.  It would save many
newcomers hours of headaches.

> Jeff


Eddy

Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence
--

Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist@xxxxxxxxx>
To: blacklist@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.  Do NOT
send mail to <blacklist@xxxxxxxxx>, or you are likely to be blocked.