Matthew: You do not need an abuse or postmaster account for mail to function properly. You do not need to accept Null sender to have email function properly. But the mail system on the Internet only works because of "cooperative interoperability". The RFCs are the standards out there and it things will work better by adherence to a set of standards. The increase in Spam has caused all of us to change how we operate (otherwise we would not be on this list). When we set up our first mail server, I did not filter for spam, did not require SMTP Authentication, did not care about the configuration of sending servers, and had Imail set to relay for local users for a year and a half. I cannot run my business nor my mail servers like I did back then. People that do not want to run their servers in accordance with industry standards are going to find that it will be more challenging for them over time.
I do agree with you about it making us all look better. Chuck Schick Warp 8, Inc. 303-421-5140 www.warp8.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Matthew Bramble > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:16 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Does anyone not have Reverse DNS? > > > 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 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.
