[120111] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Arrogant RBL list maintainers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Wed Dec 9 23:36:37 2009
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:35:43 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAACK9ckAsm6ZQpxnte0GcNU1AQAAAAA=@iname.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Two sides of an SP's coin: I want to maximize my e-mail servers'
> deliverability, so I make sure those have appropriately named PTRs and make
> sure that outbound messages aren't spammy; I also want to restrict
The point he was trying to make is that there is no standard for what
those "appropriately named PTRs" should look like. He has forward/reverse
that is perfectly ok according to standard (forward/reverse matches) and
if he had a automatic dictionary for naming those IPs instead of putting
the IPs there, things would be different.
If people want to make standards on how to put information into DNS for
RBL use, they should take it to the IETF and make a standard out of it,
not just ad-hoc create something of their own and expect everybody else to
conform. If there is an "industry standard" (which the replies here seem
to indicate), that should be written down and standardized by the people
who actually make money out of it, in this case Trend Micro. This would
remove the problem of having to maintain tens or hundred points of
contacts for "what is dynamic dialup space" which is the problem right
now as there are a lot of RBLs to deal with.
Creating a standard on what to put in WHOIS/DNS for
dynamic/static/infrastructure would make a lot of sense, seems nobody is
doing it though.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
