In article <slrnfgngun.ej5.ajs@localhost.phlogiston.dyndns.or g>,
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@ringer.phlogiston.dyndns.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 10:17:12 +0200, in comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
> (message <4703500b$0$239$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>), Maarten Wiltink
> <maarten@kittensandcats.net> wrote:
>
> > An IP address can only reverse-resolve to a single name. Pick one.
>
> That's false, or maybe more accurately, it's perfectly legal to have
> more than one PTR record at a name. See RFC 2181 section 10.2. It is
> generally in fact a good idea to have a reverse mapping for every name,
> where practical. See the current DNSOP WG draft
> reverse-mapping-considerations.

The RFC you quote says that it's a fallacy that only one PTR is
permitted, which is clearly correct. The received wisdom so far is that
nothing (hardly anything) can take advantage of multiple PTRs, so whilst
pointless they are useless, and probably confusing. Do you have an
example of an application that can make us of multiple PTRs?

Sam