nslookup from WinNT machine

[Kevin Darcy]

pelln at icke-reklam.ipsec.nu.invalid wrote:

> Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:
>
> > pelln at icke-reklam.ipsec.nu.invalid wrote:
>
> >> Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Brad Knowles wrote:
> >>
> >> >> At 11:11 AM -0700 5/24/01, Ravi Nair wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>         Of course, you'll probably want to get reverse DNS for this IP
> >> >> address (and your others) fixed, so that you don't have these kinds
> >> >> of problems.  Indeed, broken reverse DNS is probably still one of the
> >> >> single biggest problems on the 'net these days.  Sigh....
> >>
> >> > Or, one of the biggest non-problems, depending on one's point of view. IMO,
> >> > no-one should be authenticating by reverse lookup, and as for mapping
> >> > individual addresses to netblocks, well, that hardly calls for the
> >> > maintenance of millions of PTR records when a few thousand (okay, maybe tens
> >> > of thousands of) netblock records will suffice. And netblock records give you
> >> > *better* information anyway, like the names and numbers of those responsible
> >> > for the netblock.
> >>
> >> > I agree that functional reverse lookups are a nice *convenience*. But that's
> >> > as far as I'd go. I certainly wouldn't consider them mandatory. Incorrect
> >> > delegation and glue records rank *much* higher on my list of Internet DNS pet
> >> > peeves...
> >>
> >> Even if delegation and glue records is more importent, lack of proper PTR
> >> is a sign of negligence and ignorance. It's no point in implementing
> >> just parts of DNS, ignoring what you don't feel is importent.
>
> > Well, I don't maintain HINFO or WKS records, is that a sign of my negligence or
> > ignorance?
>
> no, they are not needed to be a good 'netizen'. PTR records are.

Seems rather arbitrary to me.


- Kevin