Before releasing our product update with SPF/DMP/MCEP support, for
documentation and support assistance, one of the things we looked for in our
customer based was how they were would implement the new special DNS
records.
Of course, those in control of their own DNS server had no real issue with
it. Many of the hosted systems responded with having Web-based DNS
management capabilities. However, some indicated lacking a TXT record entry
using these Web-based tools. Some were using IP hosting systems, like Road
Runner, DynaIP (??) and I got feedback from one of these that it would be a
technical challenge for to implement an SPF like setup for their customers.
But they were looking into how it can be done.
What came across my head was the wildcard or rather subdomain lookup
concept. These systems have a common primary host domain:
charlie.rr.com
bill.rr.com
tom.rr.com
whatever.rr.com
So their IP allocation is pretty much fixed in some way. However, I don't
claim to be an DNS expect or how their business works in this area, so I
can't say for sure if this is workable for them. It would imply, I believe,
that rr.com is a reputable system, rather than the subdomain. Note, that
these type of businesses have evolve to offering new services where a
customer have his/her own domain for the sub domain.
Nevertheless, one common thing I see around here is this "BIG" vs. "SMALL"
thing, and I guess, the small end of the spectrum doesn't count as much for
MARID. I may be off based, but if this is true, this would be another
mistake in the making as the early wide spread adoption will come from the
larger pool of smaller systems. I believe SPF has shown this very clearly.
However, I will note that we jumped on board only when we saw AOL.COM, a
major source of spam, began to support it.
Have a good weekend.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Claus Assmann" <ietf-mxcomp(_at_)esmtp(_dot_)org>
To: "IETF MARID WG" <ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please)
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004, Markus Stumpf wrote:
MTAMARK:
It suffers from the fact that reverse DNS lookups are
poorly implemented in major fractions of the IP address space
What? "reverse DNS lookups are poorly implemented"? What the hell are
they talking about? I think they are talking about managing revDNS is
currently *neglected* ... wow, but managing XML records in DNS does
Has someone contacted any big ISPs to see whether they are willing
to implement MTAmark? If none of the ISPs that host spam zombies
(from which 80% of the spam originates according to some recent
report) right now will participate then it seems the proposal won't
be useful. AFAIK several big ISPs have been approached and have
not shown any interest.
PS: I sent this question to Markus directly in March but haven't
heard back (probably eaten by some spam filter...)