On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > So if I want to check on 127.1.2.3, I first do lookup on
> > _srv.3.2.1.127.IN-ADDR.ARPA
> > if that does not give any answer, I'll have to do lookup on
> > _srv.2.1.127.IN-ADDR.ARPA
> > if that does not give any answer, I'll have to do lookup o
* william(at)elan.net <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-12-04 16:14]:
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Henning Brauer wrote:
> >Thus we propose expanding the reverse DNS tree with a subdomain with
> >the well known name
> >
> >_srv
> >
> >This subdomain MAY be inserted at any level in the DNS t
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > The wildcards are in the DNS server zone file for interpretation by the
> > DNS server itself. It would not be published as such because that obviously
> > wouldn't work as you prove. But nothing is preventing BIND or whatever
> > from taking this
* Andre Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-12-03 11:04]:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >>You would put in a global wildcard that says no smtp sender here. Only
> >>for those boxes being legitimate SMTP to outside senders you'd put in a
> >>more specific rec
Mark Andrews wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
You would put in a global wildcard that says no smtp sender here. Only
for those boxes being legitimate SMTP to outside senders you'd put in a
more specific record as shown above. You probably have to enter some dozen
to one hundred se
On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 16:03, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >
> >You would put in a global wildcard that says no smtp sender here. Only
> >for those boxes being legitimate SMTP to outside senders you'd put in a
> >more specific record as shown above. You probab
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>
>You would put in a global wildcard that says no smtp sender here. Only
>for those boxes being legitimate SMTP to outside senders you'd put in a
>more specific record as shown above. You probably have to enter some dozen
>to one hundred servers this wa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:03:55 +0100, Andre Oppermann said:
Reverse zone file for 10.0.0.0/24:
1.0.0.10.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR mail.example.com.
_send._smtp._srv.1.0.0.10.in-addr.arpa. IN TXT "1"
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-stumpf-dns-mta
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:03:55 +0100, Andre Oppermann said:
> Reverse zone file for 10.0.0.0/24:
>
> 1.0.0.10.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR mail.example.com.
>
> _send._smtp._srv.1.0.0.10.in-addr.arpa. IN TXT "1"
>
> ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark
> Quick example, though: of 6936 patterns currently in my list, if you
> just run a cut on \\ (which catches either '.' or '-' as the
> next char,
> for the most part) you get (matches of 20 or more):
>
> count first left-hand pattern part
> -
> 1572 ^[0-9]+
>
Steven Champeon wrote:
on Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:34:43PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:02:19 EST, Steven Champeon said:
Connect:dhcp.vt.edu ERROR:5.7.1:"550 go away, dynamic user"
Given the number of options available at our end, I can hardly blame
other sites for cons
on Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:34:43PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:02:19 EST, Steven Champeon said:
>
> > Connect:dhcp.vt.edu ERROR:5.7.1:"550 go away, dynamic user"
>
> Given the number of options available at our end, I can hardly blame
> other sites for considerin
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:02:19 EST, Steven Champeon said:
> Connect:dhcp.vt.edu ERROR:5.7.1:"550 go away, dynamic user"
Given the number of options available at our end, I can hardly blame
other sites for considering this a reasonable rule - I can't think of a
scenario we can't fix at our end,
> Just a quick note: it's not a BCP yet, but it's also considered
> /extremely/ friendly by mail admins and others, if you use a naming
> convention for your rDNS that is easily placed into access.db
> and other
> "right-anchored" string matching mechanisms. e.g., if you have a
> dynamically assi
on Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 02:41:00PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:16:49 EST, Steven Champeon said:
>
> > FWIW, 40% or more of the inbound spam mail here comes from hosts with a
> > generic rDNS naming convention (even after DNSBLs and other obvious
> > forgery checks suc
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Greg Albrecht wrote:
> we've recently gotten an influx of customer request for us to setup
> reverse dns for the customer's mail servers
Do you not delegate reverse DNS to customers?
> however, management has taken it upon themselves to charge our customers
> for every revers
At 08:56 AM 12/01/04 -0800, Greg Albrecht wrote:
are we obligated, as a user of ARIN ip space, or per some BCP, to provide
ad-hoc reverse dns to our customers with-out cost, or without financial
obligation.
As noted, reverse DNS is pretty universally considered a normal operating
practice, "part
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:16:49 EST, Steven Champeon said:
> FWIW, 40% or more of the inbound spam mail here comes from hosts with a
> generic rDNS naming convention (even after DNSBLs and other obvious
> forgery checks such as hosts using my domain(s)/IP(s) in HELO/EHLO). We
> simply quarantine any
on Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 11:27:54AM -0600, Robert Hayden wrote:
>
> Besides, if customers "need" it to make their mail work, choosing not to
> do it will be a good indication to your customers that another provider
> might be more supportive.
>
> Basic non-custom reverse DNS on everything is a
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:57 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: is reverse dns required? (policy question)
>
>
>
> > I thought I saw some 'MUST' sta
> I thought I saw some 'MUST' statements in an RFC
[*] From RFC 1912, section 2.1.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1912.html
"Every Internet-reachable host should have a name. The consequences of
this are becoming more and more obvious. Many services available on the
Internet will not talk to you if
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 08:56:23 -0800
Greg Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> are we obligated, as a user of ARIN ip space, or per some BCP, to
> provide ad-hoc reverse dns to our customers with-out cost, or without
> financial obligation.
I thought I saw some 'MUST' statements in an RFC about
On Dec 1, 2004, at 11:56 AM, Greg Albrecht wrote:
i'm currently having an argument with management.
Don't we all, always? :-)
we've recently gotten an influx of customer request for us to setup
reverse dns for the customer's mail servers, since most sites (aol,
freebsd, others) require it to acc
Besides, if customers "need" it to make their mail work, choosing not to
do it will be a good indication to your customers that another provider
might be more supportive.
Basic non-custom reverse DNS on everything is a "good thing" to put in
place regardless.
- Robert
J.D. Falk wrote:
On 12/01
On 12/01/04, Greg Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> are we obligated, as a user of ARIN ip space, or per some BCP, to
> provide ad-hoc reverse dns to our customers with-out cost, or without
> financial obligation.
From a purely network operations perspective: YES, every IP
i'm currently having an argument with management.
we've recently gotten an influx of customer request for us to setup
reverse dns for the customer's mail servers, since most sites (aol,
freebsd, others) require it to accept mail, and reject mail if it is not
from a server with reverse dns (i'm a
26 matches
Mail list logo
