On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bruce Barnes wrote:
AOL is already stating their right to refuse to accept messages that contain
no PTR record.
Carl mentioned this on another list, and I think the upshot of it was, if you
have no PTR for your IP *and* your IP sends a certain amount of spam based on
member complaints, they *may* give you a fast-track to blocking. I don't
think that they are to the point of blocking no-ptr IP's pre-emptively... I
think it's just another item in their toolbox that they can use as needed.
For my personal email and the handful of friends that I manage domains for, I
default to not accepting mail from no-ptr sources. A couple folks asked to
override this setting but for the most part it hasn't been a problem.
I also run a medium-sized mailman server with 10 lists and about 1500 members
total. I refuse no-ptr mail to the lists and will explain to anyone who
complains that it's a free service and that's the local policy. So far only
one person has complained - I guess most people are able to read the bounce
message and figure it out :)
By AOL's rejection of e-mail without PTR records, they are setting a
precedent that can clearly be presented to ISPs who don't have PTR records -
their mail may be rejected by AOL, NETSCAPE and COMPUSERVE.
I agree. PTR is an internet standard and I don't feel it's optional. IP
addresses without a PTR are not really on the Internet as far as I'm concerned
:)
--
Greg Connor
gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org
Everyone says that having power is a great responsibility. This is a lot
of bunk. Responsibility is when someone can blame you if something goes
wrong. When you have power you are surrounded by people whose job it is
to take the blame for your mistakes. If they're smart, that is.
-- Cerebus, "On Governing"