IPv6 automatic reverse DNS

Karl Auer kauer at biplane.com.au
Sat Oct 29 03:26:59 UTC 2016


On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 18:37 -0700, Steve Atkins wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Karl Auer <kauer at biplane.com.au>
> > wrote:
> > It's fine to use no-reverse-lookup as a component of a spamminess
> > score. It's not OK to use it as proof of spamminess.
> People running large mailservers made that decision some time
> ago. Disagreeing with them won't make them accept your email.

I didn't say it would. IMHO reverse lookups are excellent and useful.
My only beef is with the idea that the absence of a reverse lookup
entry has any useful meaning any more, or, in particular, is proof of
spamminess.

It would be interesting (and would alter my opinion) to see statistics
of real spamminess positives ("is spam") dropping significantly if
failed reverse lookups are removed from the calculation.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://twitter.com/kauer389

GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B
Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4





More information about the NANOG mailing list