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

[Kevin Darcy]

brad at shub-internet.org wrote:

>Kevin Darcy <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>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!
>>    
>>
>
>You're welcome to run your mail servers however you want.  However, you
>know damn good and well that WKS records are deprecated, and if you want to
>be so stupid as to require deprecated records in the DNS before you accept
>mail, then by all means you should be able to do so.
>
>Indeed, I would encourage you to do so.  Please.
>
>  
>
>>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?
>>    
>>
>
>Reverse DNS isn't irrelevant.  If you think it is, then please feel free to
>delete all reverse DNS from all your domains.
>
I'll continue to do what is necessary to get my users' mail through, and 
at the same time be vocal about how pointless and ridiculous this 
particular "anti-SPAM" mechanism is, along with all of the other 
"anti-SPAM" mechanisms that rely on certain bits of information being 
published or not published in the Internet DNS.

You, on the other hand, can feel free to ignore the fact that the 
Emperor has no clothes...

                                                                         
                                       - Kevin