On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 06:42:44PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:00:05PM -0500, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote: > > > > > http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/ > > > > On 11.02.10 16:06, Henrik K wrote: > > > > What a complex scheme you invented for a simple problem. All you have > > > > to do > > > > is to require legimate relays to have a FCrDNS entry with an actually > > > > identifiable name, like starting with "smtp". Much simpler to take > > > > advantage > > > > of that and it actually is somewhat used today. > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 06:25:07PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > ok, I should do an s/^ip-/smtp-/ on all our clients' ips... > > On 11.02.10 19:34, Henrik K wrote: > > I don't know if there's some joke included or whatever. If they are sending > > mail, then yes having a good PTR will result in less greylisting etc. > > of course > ip-212-081-019-000.static.nextra.sk. > > well, dynamic addresses are listed differently: > > dial-195-168-160-000.dynamic.nextra.sk. > adsl-195-168-244-000.dynamic.nextra.sk. > > so probably > s/^(dial|adsl|ip)-/smtp-/ > > there are _many_ mailservers not having name indicating they are used for > mail and I don't think any form of requiring them to have such name is a > good idea...
If the "owner" of such IP wants, he will order the change (if possible). No one is _requiring_ them to have any name, but what name do you think will pass the most mail? If you are the ISP, it's not your job to start changing anything without notice.
