Knowing that mail servers are not deployed on IPv6, what would it take to make
all these requirements mandatory for IPv6 and start with a better
infrastructure than on IPv4?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Cole" <asrg3(_at_)billmail(_dot_)scconsult(_dot_)com>
To: "Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF" <asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, 16 June, 2009 8:27:27 PM GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Bern /
Rome / Stockholm / Vienna
Subject: Re: [Asrg] What are the IPs that sends mail for a domain?
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote, On 6/16/09 9:55 PM:
On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 17:24 -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:
IMHO, all outbound MTAs should be required to return CVS records for
their EHLO name and offer MX records for their inbound.
Doug, are you sure that's what you meant to say? The sentence is a bit
ambiguous. Are you really saying any host that sends mail (is an SMTP
client) MUST also host an listed SMTP server?
I can't testify to what he meant, but I think what he is actually saying is
that if you have a machine that says "EHLO some.name" then there should be
both a MX record for some.name and a SRV record for _client._smtp.some.name
(i.e. a CSV/CSA record).
That doesn't mean requiring inbound SMTP on every outbound, it means
requiring an affirmation in DNS that a name can be used in EHLO by a
particular IP address and a way to get mail to the responsible party for the
machine(s) using that name in EHLO. This is an admirable goal. A weaker goal
would be to get people running non-spamming mail servers to follow the
existing accepted standard of using a valid resolvable FQDN in EHLO.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg