> This is not germane to the discussion, but it would be a great issue > to waste mailing list bandwidth on. So please let's not. We > really don't need to discuss the vagaries of spam assassination here.
I wholeheartedly agree that the vagaries of spam assassination aren't relevant to this list, and I'd prefer not to read a lengthy debate about them, especially among people who aren't well-versed in the subject (a category that includes myself). But spam fighters are a real constituency, who (so I'm told) get real and useful information from reverse DNS, and they don't seem to be very well-represented here. Bottom line, I'm fairly comfortable with vagueness in this case. Reverse DNS is reportedly an effective tool for spam detection in 2007, so we shouldn't make the assertion that it *isn't* useful for that. But that test isn't entirely reliable now, and may become less so over time, so we don't want to assert it *is* useful, either. The vague middle way seems like the only real option to me: it has been found to be useful in some circumstances, and is commonly used; however, it produces false positives and is controversial. That's more or less what's in the draft now. -- Evan Hunt -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
