Not sure why Paul Vixie wants to relegate my IPv6 address to third class citizen that's not good enough to be a peer on the Internet for port 25. I'd ask him, but his mail server refuses my email due to my ISPs lack of reverse IPv6 :p
I'm all for anti-spam heuristics, but checking the reverse is simply a method that's causing too many false positives, on top of punishing "early" adopters of IPv6 Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 31, 2014, at 01:28, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > > > >> <compose-unknown-contact.jpg> Doug Barton Thursday, October 30, >> 2014 9:00 PM >> >> >> Of course not, but it is one that the ISP makes, and that distinction is >> useful to the anti-spam folks. > IETF should not be making judgements as to what an ISP will value, because > not all ISP's behave as you described. > > also, it's useless to the anti-spam folks. right now the massively faked and > manufactured PTR RR's coming from almost all last-mile providers for about > half of all the IPv4 address space that's reachable, has to be laboriously > cataloged so that it can be ignored. > > that is, the lack of a PTR suggests that a device ought not be initiating > TCP/25 outside its local network. (this is an observation of how the > anti-spam folks, including myself, behave; it is not a recommendation.) > knowing this, last-mile providers foolishly and bizarrely create hundreds of > millions of PTR RR's that have no value whatsoever since they simply encode > the IP address in ASCII and add the ISP's ".foo.net" suffix. knowing this, > the anti-spam folks make lists of these manufactured patterns so that (and > ONLY so that) they can pretend they do not exist. > > i suggest an efficiency improvement: don't manufacture these PTR's in the > first place. let last-mile devices be PTR-free. signal to anti-spam folks, > such as myself, by this method, that these are not real "hosts" and should > not be participating in what were once considered end-to-end protocols, such > as off-network SMTP. > > internet service != internet access. can we make that taxonomy explicit, and > stop equivocating? > > Oct 31 00:59:29 ss postfix/postscreen[3912]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from > [59.55.248.215]:2294: 550 5.7.1 Service unavailable; client [59.55.248.215] > blocked using b.barracudacentral.org; from=<sabrina.g...@yahoo.com>, > to=<wsksc...@mibh.com>, proto=ESMTP, helo=<yahoo.com> > > 215.248.55.59.in-addr.arpa. 69668 IN PTR > 215.248.55.59.broad.ja.jx.dynamic.163data.com.cn. > ;; Received 106 bytes from 202.101.226.68#53(ns.jxjjptt.net.cn) in 162 ms > > -- > Paul Vixie > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
