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

[Chip Mefford]

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

Simon Hobson wrote:
| Chip Mefford wrote:
|
|
|>They may indeed have address->name mappings, but very seldom does
|>one have an MX record. Not MX record, then it is not a legitimate
|>mail relay.
|
|
| Can I clarify what you mean here ?

Sure.

| I read it as, if the mx record doesn't match the sending IP address,
| then the sending machine is not legitimate. That makes all our
| outgoing mail illegitimate then !

No, however a lot of folks (and I have *NOT* done this) use the MX
mapping thing as a rule in their spam fighting attempts.
This would be folks like compuserve in europe, apple.com aol.com and
some others.

| None of my MX records will give the IP address that outgoing mail
| goes from, and my incoming and outgoing mail is handled by different
| hosts.

As are a lot of ours.

| So are you advocating that I must break or cludge a perfectly valid
| and working configuration for some sort of temporary appearance of
| helping fight spam ?

I'm not advocating anything other than to get your dns in order,
What I am stating, again, is that there are some large networks who
*do* this. It does happen, I do understand why, No, I do not think it
is a best practice, but it is a fact of life.

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

iD8DBQFA/UvKa44x14FCa6ARApdcAKCO2kf5Hw4grtkbDLQzstXlaN5ZfwCgju/I
NeZMfYe7poIZ2m4+nl67M1w=
=bbOv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----