der Mouse wrote:
There are different geographic regions and organizations that refuse
to publish reverse DNS.
This is true. In my experience being one of them correlates
positively, and at least moderately strongly (though of course not
perfectly), with being part of the precipitate.
(as opposed to being part of the "solution", I guess)
Possibly, this scarceness corroborates the belief that rDNS results
are more trustworthy than direct DNS records.
As an anti-abuse effort, some providers [...] do not
accept connections without a reverse DNS entry being found.
This used to be typical of FTP servers in the '80s. However, some
feedback loop providers apparently make use of it today. Let alone
investigations about the PTR target being automatically generated or
containing the "dynamic" keyword. IMHO, synthesizing informations on
that basis is symptomatic of technologies in their infancy being
desperately greedy for data they cannot obtain [otherwise].
As a result, these providers may be unable to communicate with some
organizations or geographic regions.
Right. So? Someone who doesn't tolerate dashes in domain names won't
be able to communicate with rodents-montreal.org, either.
I never heard about dash-intolerants. Are you kidding?
Who is wrong, because in the case of email, reverse DNS is clearly
being misused.
It's not clear to me that anyone is wrong there, nor that rDNS is being
misused.
Much like whois, rDNS is being used in relation with the possibility
to individuate who, if any, is responsible for running a host at the
given address. DNSBLs, certificates, reputation, etcetera, all rotate
around allocations of those IP numbers, but rDNS dependence reveals
unreadiness for a truly virtual environment: What if _all_ IPs were
dynamic?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg