On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 11:06:48PM +0100, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Fortunately, in a spam scoring system, as long as you don't use this
> as your exclusive score, it's probably okay - hopefully other
> indicators will tell you a different story.
Right; this is why I think the "security" and "utility" q
> Actually, there is one reason to consider it stupid: I might have
> control over my forward tree, but not over the reverse tree for the
> IP address I have.
But, as I understand it, that is *exactly* the datum that people who use
the reverse tree for spam detection are interested in. They
On Mar 19, 2007, at 7:58 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
One thing that popped for me during your presentation today, Andrew,
is that you say that the stupid things people are doing with the
reverse zone have to work. This isn't true.
Yikes. If that's the way I put it, my apologies; it certainly
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 06:25:54PM +0100, Ted Lemon wrote:
> One thing that popped for me during your presentation today, Andrew,
> is that you say that the stupid things people are doing with the
> reverse zone have to work. This isn't true.
Yikes. If that's the way I put it, my apologi
One thing that popped for me during your presentation today, Andrew,
is that you say that the stupid things people are doing with the
reverse zone have to work. This isn't true. They don't have to
work. If they are stupid, they oughtn't to work. E.g., if your
ssh server is checking
At Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:30:46 -0500,
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Title : Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping
> > Author(s) : D. Senie, A. Sullivan
> > Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-02.txt
> > Pages
