Hi, On 11/21/2012 9:28 PM, Jim Reid wrote: > > On 21 Nov 2012, at 18:07, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > >> network operators should provide PTR RR's for specific addresses which >> have real names. the inability due to IPv6's richness of address space >> to provide auto-naming for PTR's does not to me, a problem statement make. > > +1
+1 not pre-populating rDNS here. feel that absence of rDNS is a useful indicator for "don't accept spam from here". 1.1 s/2.0.192.IN-ADDR-ARPA/2.0.192.IN-ADDR.ARPA/g while I consider 1.1 correct. I doubt whether that's a "good" situation. 2.1 sounds a bit like it's bad to receive an NXDOMAIN. Is it bad? is "successful lookup" one that gets a response, or one that has ANSWER: >0 ? Under recommendations I personally would like the negative response to be given more consideration. Maybe as a default behavior for residential connections as long as end users have not chosen any of the other options (as/if provided by the ISP)...? Frank _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
