[67309] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: question on ptr rr
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Sat Feb 7 15:10:52 2004
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:10:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20040207184358.35CBD5DEB9@segue.merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I think the tipping point went by a while ago, and that anyone
> > who wants their e-mail to be accepted will make sure their mail
> > relay has a PTR and that that this PTR holds the same name used
> > in the SMTP HELO command.
>
> so you think it is fine if i require rdns for the ietf and other
> mailing lists i host? i suspect others will not.
DNSOP has been batting this issue around for years, and it periodically
comes up in most oether Internet forums on a regular basis.
Requiring DNS IN-ADDR Mapping: draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt
This is one of those self-defeating requirements. It works while there
isn't a strong requirement. But if we could actually get everyone to
implement it, it would cease to be an effective method.
If www.google.com required in-addr ptr records, I suspect most spam
sources would have properly configured in-addr ptr records.
Should IETF sponsored resources follow the details of various RFCs?
It depends. IETF sponsored resources probably should be expected to
follow STDs. But what about other RFCs and Internet-Drafts?
