On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 08:30:59AM -0700, Ben Reser wrote:
> Frankly I don't understand why they have their mailservers setup to
> require reverse DNS. It doesn't kill that many spammers
We do filter mail servers that doesn't have a reverse DNS record
and we have experienced that the emails which get undelivered due to
this are from 99% from spammers, broken emails from broken mail
servers from broken networks and only ~1% of undelivered emails are
just a "correct" emails from networks with temporary DNS problems and
from badly configured networks or from people not sending emails
through their providers (but directly from their dialup)
Also note that RFC 2821 (SMTP):
...
2.3.4 Host
For the purposes of this specification, a host is a computer system
attached to the Internet (or, in some cases, to a private TCP/IP
network) and supporting the SMTP protocol. Hosts are known by names
(see "domain"); identifying them by numerical address is discouraged
...
> I would imagine the filtering would do just fine getting rid of the spam
> without this requirement.
Spamassasin? Why not... but I guess it will stress the servers load
even more and could cause more delayed delivering (which is sometimes
really bad now with cooker@)
--
Martin Mačok http://underground.cz/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://Xtrmntr.org/ORBman/
