--On 16 June 2009 17:24:03 -0700 Douglas Otis <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
wrote:
The CSV effort proved most providers do not want their MTAs identified as
belonging to them, even when it could improve email acceptance. This
might be especially true now after their support staff has been reduced.
It'll probably depend on how much difference it makes to email acceptance.
The harder it is to deliver email without some assurance that the sender
isn't spoofed, the better.
Reverse DNS is already causing a large amount of resources to be wasted
by the shabby state of the reverse name space. Incorrectly configured
RFC 2317 delegation, and many non-functional servers are causing MTAs to
rapidly become resource limited when making reverse checks. In
addition, when your customers conduct business with Asia, they may not be
happy to find email is being lost as a result of geographic differences
of opinion about the role that reverse DNS might play with email.
IMHO, all outbound MTAs should be required to return CVS records for
their EHLO name and offer MX records for their inbound. A mandate that
required MX (inbound) or CVS (outbound) records would greatly help in
identifying non-abusive email sources against a backdrop of hundreds of
millions of bot-net controlled drones spewing email. Systems may soon
use ACLs as a means to white-list safe MTAs. Perhaps the world is a few
years from having to go to that extreme.
It's not a binary thing, though.
-Doug
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg