On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 06:16:06PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Yes, but it only helps other people reduce spam. Fixing your own
reverse zones does nothing for your own spam load, at least not
for the first few years.
Huh?
If there is a RFC that says "MUST" have and I don't accept emails from
servers that don't adopt I have a /lot/ less spam. And everyone
complaining I can send the URL of the RFC and say "adopt".
2) there is a RFC that says they should
I doubt this is the right working group to produce an RFC that mandates
proper reverse zones. This is the IRTF instead of the IETF.
I'm starting to doubt that this is the right group to find a solution to
spam. Too many people have too many different (e.g. commercial) interests
to push "their" solution.
Depending on how you read them, there are already RFCs that say
That's the problem. Exactly what I said: "it depends" and nobody every
said "MUST". This can be changed.
3) It will reduce the costs of the abuse department, as 5000 braindead
admins with misconfigured workstations can't cause too much trouble
anymore and the complaints will become reports.
That's a tad theoretical, since it depends not only on good reverse
DNS but your new TXT RR.
No it isn't. If I have the TXT RR in DNS and I get a complaint I can
point to the URL of the RFC and say "adopt, but I will talk to our
customer about the problem".
Maybe so, but you missed the most memorable reason I've been given.
That was "not having good reverse DNS names reduces spam."
No.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
"The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally
proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin"
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg