[76108] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: is reverse dns required? (policy question)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Wed Dec 1 15:38:32 2004
To: Steven Champeon <schampeo@hesketh.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:02:19 EST."
<20041201200219.GE11332@hesketh.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:34:43 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_-1664452955P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:02:19 EST, Steven Champeon said:
> Connect:dhcp.vt.edu ERROR:5.7.1:"550 go away, dynamic user"
Given the number of options available at our end, I can hardly blame
other sites for considering this a reasonable rule - I can't think of a
scenario we can't fix at our end, as long as the user bothers calling our
help desk and asks for help fixing it...
(On the other hand, anybody who's filtering certain address blocks because
they're our DHCP blocks deserves to be shot, for all the usual reasons and then
some..)
> Wouldn't catch 1.2.3.4.dhcp.vt.edu.example.com anyway.
Yeah, but that has 'dhcp' at something other than the 3rd level.. ;)
I was more interested in whether a rule like '*.dhcp.*.{com|net|org|edu)'
(blindly looking at the 3rd level domain and/or the 4th level for the
two-letter TLDs) did any better/worse than having to maintain a list of 7K or
so - are there enough variant forms that it's worth enumerating, or is it just
that enumerating is easier than doing a wildcard?
--==_Exmh_-1664452955P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFBrirjcC3lWbTT17ARAoZtAJ9GmohWZgLlOruYsXiWO7HZXdc6hACg6mDi
V33EMDArGVVEFDKKgaCBxa4=
=Uh/4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_-1664452955P--
