Frank Cusack put forth on 1/17/2010 2:47 PM: > On January 17, 2010 12:37:46 PM -0800 "Daniel V. Reinhardt" > <crypto...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> A proper ISP and Host would have the proper PTR Records set up thus >> validating the said sender as being part of a reputable ISP or Host. >> Most of the spammers I have come across have improper DNS Records set up >> meaning no name lookup based on IP address e.g 127.0.0.1 returns nothing. >> So rejecting email email by PTR Records is a spam prevention thing. > > Five years ago, yes.
Have you been in prison or incapacitated for the last few years Frank? You seem to be out of touch with many established standards/norms. First you argue for multiple PTR records for mail sending hosts. Then you argue that no PTR should be required for mail sending hosts. You've just proposed both extremes of the debate, yet the debate on this was over long ago, and everyone else is right in the middle: one PTR required for a mail sending host. Rejecting mail due to lack of a PTR is an anti bot spam tactic. It is as prevalent today as it was 5 years ago, but probably less effective. Many ISPs went PTR crazy, assigning them to all their dynamic consumer IP ranges. DULs and generic PTR regexes are now more effective in this regard. Even so, there are still large amounts of consumer IP space without PTRs, so this tactic is still valid, and still widely used. -- Stan
