On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 12:10:43AM +0200, JP Velders wrote:
> Over here in "RIPE land" so to speak, several ISP's (most notably
> FIRST members) have put a lot of effort in getting 'IRT' objects in
> the RipeDB.
Isn't it funny, how everyone always takes a "lot of efforts" reinventing
things that
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:26:04AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> You are adding a prefix not a type. If you added a type there
> would be no issue. It would work with existing RFC 2317 sytle
> delegations.
The issue would be deployment.
Design Choices When Expanding DNS (dra
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 07:31:44AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Does it really matter?
Yes it does.
(As we all know at least since the Godzilla movie "size does matter" ;-)
It has direct influence on the deployment.
> Even if it was only one site the problem
> would still have
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 12:51:43PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:43:06 PST, "J.D. Falk" said:
> > (I'm also surprised you need 300 servers to handle such a small
> > load -- what is that, ~ messages per server per day?)
> Some mail software scales better than
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 12:22:33PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Which would mean that if Suresh insisted on revDNS, he'd end up blocking
> only 2 hosts, but 40% of his legitimate mail would be dropped on the floor.
Correct. But neither MTAMARK nor I suggest blocking based on non
existant rev
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 01:09:04PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:29:49 +0100, Markus Stumpf
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you look at your logfiles you will notice that > 95% of all legit
> > mailservers already have working and i
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:41:08AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Lots. I'm sure that there are lots of ISPs/IAPs on NANOG
> that do RFC 2317 style delegations for their customers.
How many is lots?
And how often do the IP addresses of (outgoing) Mailservers change within
a subnet? Non
(sorry, first reply to list lost due to wrong From)
> In priciple, nothing. In practice, the rDNS is a mess and I don't know
> many people who think it's likely to get cleaned up enough that we can
> expect to put in all the MTA MARK entries.
If you look at your logfiles you will notice that >
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 10:05:05AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >What is wrong with MTAMARK?
> As currently described it doesn't fit well with RFC 2317
> style delegations. They would need to be converted to use
> DNAME instead of CNAME which requires all the delegating
>
