Reverse Dns Question...is it really necessary or not?

[Chip Mefford]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
| KD> some misguided mail servers/admins use reverse lookups as a
| KD> kind of litmus test for spam (as if spammers couldn't come
| KD> up with their own reverse records, duh).

Right, but spambots don't.

|
| ... which, of course, they do.  And as a consequence these misguided
| administrators come up with ever more convoluted, arbitrary, and
fallacious
| DNS-based tests to apply, and cause more and more false positives as a
| consequence.
|SNIP
~ that that "real domain name" must have an
| "MX" resource record set; and that the "MX" resource records must
refer to "A"
| resource record sets that in turn contain the original IP address.

This is becoming more prevalent. Not less so. As stated a moment ago,
this trend is strengthening. Just like a lot of us have had to upgrade
our software, sometimes we have to upgrade our services. It's a fact,
like it or not.

I want to run an open relay, so that the mail can get through. Because
of the spamming, I cannot do this. I (like all of you) closed my
relays many years ago. It isn't friendly, it isn't fun, it isn't
helpful, it isn't in the spirit of the internet. But that's just
how it is.

I want to run an open innd server, but I can't do that any more either.

's all I got to say.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFA9Ykva44x14FCa6ARAsiAAKCq+PjLLvGb1E4dI2B0X9w4JLTEkQCdEUgE
XtGeAdkEt0EVHPm7vYKHcJw=
=lGW2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----