[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Requiring PTR

2008-04-12 09:40:12

At 07:05 12-04-2008, Hector Santos wrote:
It may also raise the question when the "World's largest ESP" and a growing amount of other ESPs/ISP mail receivers forcing this PTR record, should be 'Highlighted' in 2821bis.

RFC 2821bis is not about what the "world's largest ESP" does. It does not highlight current practice because such practices can change over time.

I mean, there are some who believe the MX is required for security reasons. Well, why not PTR?

I gather that you mean abuse reasons instead of security reasons.

Its stupid I think and x821 always allowed PTR checking as an option, but it was so unreliable, it wasn't a real issue and hardly used in my experience.

The RFC allows local policy. It's up to the site to determine whether the policy is reliable or not.

But I am at a point now where I'm no longer sure what make sense any more or that it really matter any more. What pisses me off is this new growing behavior is pushing the support burden on smaller vendors and people like myself and brother.

That's unfortunately how things are. I could point out that a lot of people, including the author of this message, argued for proposals that can cause such a burden.

I guess there is also some selfishness here because as with most things, if it doesn't happen to you, if you don't feel it, most people who careless about it.

Well said!

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>