[120089] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Arrogant RBL list maintainers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jon Lewis)
Wed Dec 9 12:30:31 2009
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:29:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org>
To: Mike Lieman <mikelieman@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <43661d390912090911h55591d94tc6b1091d4cd7bfa3@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Mike Lieman wrote:
> Is there an RFC detailing that specific text strings must be used for static
> v. dynamic addresses?
There's this expired draft
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-schemes-00.txt
But really, the rdns should just clearly indicate the use of the IPs if
you're going to do generic/script generated rDNS.
a84-22-96-117.cb3rob.net doesn't tell me anything except that this IP is
part of a large block of generic rDNS. Something like
a84-22-96-117.static.cb3rob.net at least indicates that the IPs are
static, while a84-22-96-117.dynamic.cb3rob.net clearly indicates the space
is dynamic. Doing this takes much of the guesswork out of it when others
on the net need to decide "should we accept mail from this IP?" Keeping
the indicator as close as possible to the domain helps out for things that
do simple string matching. i.e. with a84-22-96-117.dynamic.cb3rob.net,
it's a safe bet I don't want mail from *.dynamic.cb3rob.net. That's
easier to block (with a single rule) than
dynamic.a84-22-96-117.cb3rob.net.
Still, if you're serious about getting mail from that IP
delivered, its far better to have the PTR = the domain or system name than
some generic string roughly equivalent to all the neighboring IP PTRs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis | I route
Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are
Atlantic Net |
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
