RE: Reverse dns

["Mike Ring" <mring () presgar com>]

If my memory serves me correctly, I've run into performance problems
with both NFS and HP's omniback product that were caused by missing
reverse records.

Mike Ring CISSP
IT Security Specialist 
PresGar Companies
-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk
[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces () lists grok org uk] On Behalf Of Paul
Schmehl
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 10:58 AM
To: full-disclosure () lists grok org uk
Subject: [Full-disclosure] Reverse dns

Is there an RFC *requirement* for reverse dns?

I've been looking through the RFCs and I can't find it.  Some folks
think 
reverse dns should be completely disabled.  I know for sure that this
will 
break email, because many mail servers won't talk to a server that
doesn't 
reverse.  Tcpdump also doesn't like hosts that won't reverse.

What I'm looking for is a standard (RFC) that states that enabling
reverse 
lookups is *required* or reverse lookups are *optional*.  If they're 
optional, then reverse could be disabled for most hosts.

I'm also looking for a list of things that *break* when you disable
reverse 
(e.g. mail).

RULES FOR RESPONDING:
1) "Reverse is a good thing" is not an answer.  Neither is "Reverse is a

bad thing".
2) Opinions are not useful -  stick to facts only - chapter and verse 
please.
3) All replies to the list please - others will find this useful as
well.

Paul Schmehl (pauls () utdallas edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://www.secunia.com/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://www.secunia.com/