[80503] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Champeon)
Mon May 2 10:29:31 2005
X-Received-From: schampeo@habanero.hesketh.net
X-Delivered-To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 10:29:01 -0400
From: Steven Champeon <schampeo@hesketh.com>
To: North American Networking and Offtopic Gripes List <nanog@nanog.org>
Mail-Followup-To: North American Networking and Offtopic Gripes List <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <42759315.7030202@ttec.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
on Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:40:21PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
> What does the rest of the internet gain when all IPs have boilerplate
> reverse DNS setup for them, especialy with all these wildly differing
> and wacky naming "conventions"?
I don't care what the rest of the Internet gains, but I can say that
knowing something about these "wildly differing and wacky naming
conventions" has cut my spam load down by 98% or more. By knowing who
names their networks what, even wild-assed guesses at times have kept
the DDoS that is spam botnets from destroying the utility of email here.
> Isnt it a much simpler world where simply having rDNS lends the
> assumption of a supported "static" system as opposed to none?
Bwahahaha. You mean "supported static systems" like:
not-a-legal-address [140.113.12.106]
66.domain.tld [216.109.16.66]
customer-reverse-entry.209.213.197.128 [209.213.197.128]
suspended.for.aup.violation [216.41.37.5]
unassigned [66.240.153.10]
unassigned-64.23.24.128 [64.23.24.128]
alameda.net.has.not.owned.this.ip.for.more.then.four.years [209.0.51.16]
nolonger.a.customer.cancelled.for.AUPviolation [209.208.31.84]
...just to pick a few? I believe Suresh has already supplied the answer
to the question of rDNS having anything to do with staticity.
--
hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
join us! http://hesketh.com/about/careers/account_manager.html join us!
