On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 10:05:05AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
What is wrong with MTAMARK? As currently described it doesn't fit well with RFC 2317 style delegations. They would need to be converted to use DNAME instead of CNAME which requires all the delegating servers to be upgraded to support DNAME.
How many legit mailservers get their revDNS from RFC 2317 style delegations? Marking hosts "MTA=no" is an addon for an explicit block. I'd assume most ISPs cannot simply mark their revDNS with "MTA=no" without changing contracts, but even adding "MTA=yes" would be of a lot of help. And it is really easy and doesn't have any negative side effects ;-) \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 "The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin"