On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:34:22 +0100, in comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
(message <Sam.Wilson-58A0C6.19342209102007@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>), Sam
Wilson <Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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?

There are at least some anti-spam and network-monitoring systems that
reportedly _can_ use the additional PTRs. I know this because I'm one
of the editors of the mentioned I-D, and people told me that they had
such applications.

Also, if we continue repeating the nonsense that you must have only one
PTR, then nobody will ever do otherwise, which will continue to be a
drag on the utility of what otherwise would be a nice feature of the
DNS. The reverse tree design certainly has some problems; but let's
not invent ones that aren't there!

A