[120372] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: sink.arpa question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jason Bertoch)
Fri Dec 18 11:13:35 2009
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:12:26 -0500
From: Jason Bertoch <jason@i6ix.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <1261091772.17216@mule.he.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Ted Hardie wrote:
> Silly question: how well would using 1.0.0.257.in-addr.arpa match the
> need identified in draft-jabley-sink-arpa ?
>
> It seems like it would be equally well guaranteed to be non-existant
> (short of change in the def of IPv4 and in-addr.arpa). Like
> sink.arpa, it would get you a valid SOA and nothing else.
>
> Am I missing something, or is this operationally equivalent?
>
> regards,
>
> Ted
>
Isn't the fundamental problem that SMTP can fall back to an implicit MX?
None of these solutions will stop spammers from skipping MX records
and using direct-to-host connections. Shouldn't we just consider
dropping the implicit MX back door as opposed to getting creative with
MX records that spammers will surely note and avoid anyway?
