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

[Chip Mefford]

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

Kevin Darcy wrote:
| brad at shub-internet.org wrote:
|
|
|>Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
|>
|>>It's not at all unreasonable for any service -- www, ftp. smtp, ssh,
|>>etc -- to refuse to talk to clients that don't have their reverse DNS
|>>in order.
|>>
|>>
|>
|>Hell, ftp.uu.net was really the pioneer in this field, and they did so for
|>good reason.  IMO, it's long since past time that we should do the
same for
|>mail.
|>
|
| Oh, really? Do you have all of your RP records up to date? All of your
| netblocks encoded RFC 1101 style? All of the LOC records in place? How
| about your WKS records? No? Then maybe my mail servers should reject
| your messages!
|
| This is the Fighting SPAM via Forcing All Mail Senders to Jump Through
| Irrelevant DNS Hoops approach, and the mentality really amazes me
| sometimes. Reverse DNS was never intended as a SPAM-vs-not-SPAM
| authentication mechanism; how can it be considered anything better than
| naked opportunism to use it as such?

Well, be that as it may, and I'm not disagreeing, but as a postmaster,
this is what I am seeing, and I have to deal with it.

It's a fact of life, and I don't see it changing.

|
|                                              - Kevin

- --chipper


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

iD8DBQFA9xYQa44x14FCa6ARAr5oAKCg+F4XXX7F+62LN9nm+aqlpB4NGgCeKqh7
2GN3i87friw8VEEjyA7Odvg=
=Qctg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----