Agreed. However, this is happening to us. (a la AOL policies and others to follow) and we have to adapt.
As I pointed out, I think the value of RDNS (regardless of it not stopping or slowing down spam) is that it identifies the operator of an IP address more clearly than the large netblock allocated to the upstream ISP.
I once had an ISP that allocated my tiny netblock to me personally!!! They actually created a sub-netblock and I was listed in the ARIN whois! Not saying that is a good idea.
However RDNS can help identify the operator of the IP in cases with tiny netblocks for colo, SDSL, and other business class connections.
--Jason
At 02:16 AM 12/17/2003, you wrote: >Why not just require everyone in the world to show the secret sign before >having their E-mail accepted? Sarcasm obviously, but reverse DNS entries >are not necessary for E-mail to function properly, and in many cases won't >even match the domain given in HELO...so why require it? >This also will do near nothing to stop the flood of spam over the >long-haul, so it appears to be a net negative due to the problems that >this creates. > >Sorry, but I just see this as another blunt weapon, and again, something >that becomes our problem to deal with when problems occur. Just like I >expect to see many legit servers sending E-mail without DNS entries, I >also expect companies which take such actions to be almost impossible to >reach for corrections because they are obviously causing widespread >problems and don't have the staff to handle all of the inquiries that >would result, and of course, their lack of logic appears to have spread to >other highly imperfect anti-spam measures which have blacklisted at least >three list members reported in the last few days. > >The only positive about all of this is that it continues to prove the >incompetence of such companies to deal with spam, and that just makes me >look all the better. > >Naturally, this is all just my opinion, so please don't be offended that I >disagree so strongly. > >Matt > > > >Andy Schmidt wrote: > >>>>1. ISPs are not accurately, clearly and fairly specifying RDNS entries. >>>> >>They need to do a better job of this, but have little motivation to do this. >><< >> >>Well - I see your point and admit that there will be a painful time of >>adjustment. >> >>But frankly, providers like yours will adopt their policies, when many of >>their business customers suddenly have valid complaints that they are unable >>to send emails anymore. There is no need for them to DELEGATE DNS, but at >>least they have to offer to adopt their Reverse DNS to your needs (e.g. >>generic host entries for your domain). >> >>In the meantime, why not relay your outbound mail through your ISP? >> >>Best Regards >>Andy Schmidt >> >>Phone: +1 201 934-3414 x20 (Business) >>Fax: +1 201 934-9206 >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Holt >>Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 01:33 AM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS? >> >> >>Jason, >>Many ISPs refuse (for one reason or another) to delegate RDNS. >> >>For example, we have a T-1 from MPower in Las Vegas. It is business class. >>It has is a static block of 8 IPs. Normally considered by most as >>acceptable to host a mail server. But Mpower refuses to delegate RDNS. >> >>And a few times people on this list have set forth criteria that would >>classify us as unacceptable. Bundling us into the dynamic IP bunch because >>of our RNDS from MPower: las-DSL224-cust089.mpowercom.net >> >>The most common reason for this reasoning is that most admins consider "DSL" >>to be equal to "consumer". But there is such a thing as SDSL (symmetric >>DSL) at speeds > 2Mbit! A better hosting environment than my T-1. >> >>In conclusion, I see two distinct problems here: >>1. ISPs are not accurately, clearly and fairly specifying RDNS entries. They >>need to do a better job of this, but have little motivation to do this. >> >>2. Mail admins need to do a better job of creating criteria for mail >>classification. Don't lump all DSL into spam source. Don't put a lot of >>stock into what an RDNS says, just that it exists. I really appreciate Pete >>McNeil's unique approach in building a tool that looks for the same things >>that I would look for by hand, in the content, not the context. I think we >>need more out of the box thinking like this. >> >>Todd Holt >>Xidix Technologies, Inc >>Las Vegas, NV USA >>www.xidix.com >>702.319.4349 >> >> >> >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 7:52 PM >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS? >>> >>>I wanted to throw this question to the list: >>> >>>1) Who does *NOT* have Reverse DNS (PTR) entries for their >>> >>mailservers? >> >> >>>2) If so, why not? >>> >>>Personally I think reverse DNS entries adds an ounce of ownership to >>> >>who >> >> >>>actually uses an IP address. For instance, I have several IPs given to >>> >>me >> >> >>>by my colo provider. I have reverse DNS on all of them, even the IPs I >>>haven't used yet. If anyone looks my IPs up they will see something >>> >>like: >> >> >>>Number.freedom2be.net as reverse DNS. This is basically telling them >>> >>that >> >> >>>"freedom2be.net" is the operator of the IP address. >>> >>>3) Shouldn't all mail servers on the internet have a reverse DNS entry >>>with some valid "administrative" domain name? We use "freedom2be.net" >>>exclusively for our reverse DNS entries. As our mail server is >>> >>multi-homed >> >> >>>with many different domains. If someone needs to contact the >>> >>appropriate >> >> >>>owner of the IP, say our mail server was doing something "bad" (which >>> >>it >> >> >>>never has) they would know that "freedom2be.net" is the domain to >>> >>email. >> >> >>>(such as [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Isn't this a good idea? >>> >>>--Jason >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > > >--- >[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus >(http://www.declude.com)] > >--- >This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To >unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and >type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found >at http://www.mail-archive.com.
--- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
--- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
--- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
