michael.dillon@bt.com (michael.dillon) writes:
http://www.maawg.org/about/MAAWG_Sender_BCP/MAAWG_Senders_BCP_Combine.pdf
Thanks for the pointer. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but it's definitely a good reference. I just get irritated by actions that penalize end users who feel they don't have other options other than just using some horrible webmail service, because their operator/ISP is clueless. I do make a distinction.
On page 5 they do recommend matching reverse DNS and in Appendix A they go on to state that RFC 1912 states that all hosts on the Internet should have a valid rDNS entry.
Indeed it does, but rejecting a mail based on a missing PTR is still arbitrarily useless (and I'm speaking in terms of volume of spam emanating from hosts with a missing PTR, vs spam origination from hosts that do have a PTR).
Perhaps the RFC series doesn't have as many gaps as we think.
For mail operations, we're half a galaxy away from "be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept".
absurd, but I guess colateral damage is acceptable.
If collateral damage is acceptable, then how is this absurd?
Apologies, I was being sarcastic.
Once you accept that it is better to reject good email than let bad email through, the game has changed. It may end up by destroying the business usefulness of the existing email architecture, but not without a push from someone who has a better mousetrap.
Yep.
This is quite simply, wrong. It is warranted.
Not agreeing :) But fair enough, any site is allowed to operate mail the way it wants.
Don't go preaching it as a best practice, though.
Too late, the MAAWG has already published this as a best practice for quite some time. If you don't follow the MAAWG best practices then you are not a serious email operator. If email is mission critical to your business, then you really should be an MAAWG member as well.
We work for several customers and operate large mail installations. We implement quite a few requirements that are fairly strict, but rejecting based on missing PTR is not one of them. Neither is blacklisting entire TLDs for that matter, but I digress. I still feel like a serious mail operator, just because I don't conclude that I as the receiver should reject mail from a host with a missing PTR, because the MAAWG *Senders* BCP says that hosts should have a reverse. Phil