What's synthetic about (paraphrased) "your rDNS is missing or
broken, so I won't listen to you"?
One of the implied major premises is synthetic. The complete logic
chain reads:
* I won't listen to clueless hosts (arbitrary, but legitimate premise)
* all hosts with a missing or broken rDNS are clueless (synthetic)
* your rDNS is missing or broken (fact)
* so I won't listen to you (conclusion)
That's a bit stronger than I think is justified; I know it isn't "all".
The two (botched rDNS and clue lack) correlate well enough that I find
the rule useful, but the correlation is nowhere near good enough to
justify "all". (Their observed face exhibits clue lack, yes. But from
my vantage point I have no way to tell whether the clue shortage is
with the host, with its provider, or what. I have run into cases where
a clued admin is stuck behind impaired connectivity for some reason.)
[...] land where all ISPs obey a policy of not setting rDNS, [...]
Local ISP market should not affect the reliability of hosts operating
in that area.
Given how tightly coupled the ISP market is to its customers, I find
that somewhat doubtful. But until we have an example to look at, this
is speculation.
Possibly, a good deal of ISPs do rfc2317 delegations (if the
customers insist.)
Or just make rDNS changes on customer request, which is what the one I
work at does.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse(_at_)rodents-montreal(_dot_)org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg