reverse dns configuration for IPV4, IPV6+ dns+ mail ?

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

>>>>>* smtp_helo_name of your MTA matches the same name
>>
>>this one is incorrect and my next comment applies only to this one:

On 19.06.17 15:14, Reindl Harald wrote:
>does it harm? NO
>is it easy to achive? YES
>can it be used for scoring on a spamfilter? YES

is it required? NO.

>>Actually, this would only happen when one of the A/AAAA records 
>>didn't exist.
>>Having two PTR records with valid A/AAAA would only confuse people because
>>they could see different one each time client connects, but doesn't break
>>anything (only dns-based acl's)
>
>this NOT true for all cases
>
>FRANKLY i have seen enough *real world* postfix rejects caused by 
>"check_reverse_client_hostname_access" because the idot on the other 
>side had "mail.example.com" AND the old 
>"my-provider-xx.xx.xx.xx-dyn.crap" PTR where one time 
>"check_reverse_client_hostname_access" was fine because it dealed 
>with the "mail.example.com" and the next mail was rejected by match 
>"my-provider-xx.xx.xx.xx-dyn.crap"

those rejections were NOT caused by having two different PTRs.
They were caused by something different that is not a subject of this
thread - even one PTR of this format would cause rejections.

>in all of these cases just remove the old useless generic PTR would 
>have solved the problem from the start
>
>so please inform yourself and do tests.....

go reread the OP's question. He asked about "ns" and "mail" records.
there's no need to comment something noone did propose.

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
We are but packets in the Internet of life (userfriendly.org)