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

[Sten Carlsen]

Kevin Darcy wrote:
>Steve Friedl wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:32:23PM -0400, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I think that bears further looking into. It's _possible_ that the lack 
>>>of reverse records is the root cause, since some misguided mail 
>>>servers/admins use reverse lookups as a kind of litmus test for spam (as 
>>>if spammers couldn't come up with their own reverse records, duh).
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>AOL refuses incoming email for servers that have no rDNS, so it's
>>not exactly oddball mailadmins doing it. 
>>
>>    
>>
>I wasn't aware that the mentality had penetrated that far, since we 
>happen to provide reverse records for all of our outgoing mail servers 
>on a "courtesy" basis. Thanks for the update. I guess the next round 
>will be for SPF records to become _de_facto_ mandatory, followed by a 
>procession of other ill-advised, DNS-advertisement-based schemes to 
>combat spam...
>
>- Kevin
>
>
>
>  
>
I am not so sure SPF could be called "ill-concieved", looking at the 
spam I get, ALL of it comes from hi-jacked PCs, they ALL connect 
DIRECTLY to the receiver. None passes through the outgoing ISPs mail-relay.

Using SPF would remove all of the spam I currently receive. There will 
then be other delivery means, but in my mind there is good thinking 
behind SPF.

-- 
Best regards

Sten Carlsen

Let HIM who has an empty INBOX send the first mail.