John,
The PROBLEM_WRONG_REVERSE_MAPPING is assigning 4 points for each nameserver missing "correct" rDNS. With 8 nameservers, that's 12
just to be clear: "wrong" means inconsistent reverse mapping, not a missing one. While reverse mapping may be absent, inconsistencies are almost always a sign of a problem. The reverse mapping is not required for the resolution processs but is helpful (and in the case of inconsistencies: less helpful) for debugging.
points more than failure. Now, I could work around this by only submitting 4 nameservers, but that seems contrary to the goal of having a stable in-addr.arpa delegation.
I wonder why you're having so many name servers all suffering from the same problem. Maybe they're administratively *and* topologically close? Could you give details, please?
The description for PROBLEM_WRONG_REVERSE_MAPPING refers to RFC1912, section 2.1 which says "should", not "must", so such a high penalty for no technical problem does not seem valid. I can't think of a truely operational problem caused by missing rDNS on an auth nameserver.
RFC 1912 predates RFC 2119, so this 'should' vs 'must' deliberations must(sic!) be taken with a grain of salt.
I would like to propose either changing this to a 0 point Information, or a 1 point Warning.
One could also argue that the same warning produced by several servers should be limited in its impact, but OTOH this accumulation of warnings, even of the same type, suggests a deeper inspection is due. -Peter