jason at i6ix.com
Fri Dec 18 10:12:26 CST 2009
Ted Hardie wrote:
> Silly question: how well would using 188.8.131.527.in-addr.arpa match the
> need identified in draft-jabley-sink-arpa ?
> It seems like it would be equally well guaranteed to be non-existant
> (short of change in the def of IPv4 and in-addr.arpa). Like
> sink.arpa, it would get you a valid SOA and nothing else.
> Am I missing something, or is this operationally equivalent?
Isn't the fundamental problem that SMTP can fall back to an implicit MX?
None of these solutions will stop spammers from skipping MX records
and using direct-to-host connections. Shouldn't we just consider
dropping the implicit MX back door as opposed to getting creative with
MX records that spammers will surely note and avoid anyway?
More information about the NANOG