On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:04:23 EST, M Wild <asrg(_at_)wildm(_dot_)com> said:
I am reconsidering this decision. Amending the RFC to *REQUIRE* correct and
complete DNS setup for a SMTP client would go a long way towards reducing my
undesired traffic. It would also address the customer (and clueless
administrator) complaints with a simple "I am following the rules" How can
you argue with that?
1) Some 30% of IPs don't have proper PTR entries, according to a result posted
by Christian Huitema to the IETF list a while ago.
2) RFC1918 mandates that you don't leak 1918 addresses to the public net,
but some 30% of all queries that reach the *ROOT* nameservers have 1918
source addresses, indicating massive failures to deploy proper ingres/egress
filtering at border routers.
3) Wander over to the NANOG list and see what pain people are going through
because of old outdated bogon filters that include 69/8.
Remember why you had to turn it off - mandating it in an RFC means you'd
go back to that situation again for quite some time....
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
pgpD9b7UEbyQj.pgp
Description: PGP signature