On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:40:48PM +0100,
Brett Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 71 lines which said:
> I would say in the majority of cases
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
May be in RIPEland but not everywhere on the
Internet.
> What are these cases, maybe we can address the problem of what
> causes this inability to provide reverse delegation.
Sure, but it is a long-term effort. You need to convince a lot of lazy
or incompetent IAP.
> I don't think that difficulty in obtaining PTR should stop us
> encouraging the use of it.
The problem is that, once a RFC is out with sentences like "you really
should have a PTR", two things will happen:
* people will have something to show to their lazy and incompetent IAP
to encourage them to set up arpa delegation (a good thing),
* more people will filter based on the lack of PTR records (a bad thing).
> Well I don't think any of us wants to see moves that would ban users
> In Africa
I vividly remember a public meeting about spam where the AOL
representative (Nicolas Pioch) proudly claimed "We have blacklisted
the three-quarters of Africa".
> encouraging users to use reverse mappings where they are able to do
> so (especially in areas of Internet growth such as Africa) is an
> important message.
Since Afrinic works, things are certainly getting better. However, I
just have to open a few messages at random in an african mailing list
and I can find in the Received headers the following mail servers
without PTR:
62.56.190.2 (62.56.188.0/22 has not been transferred to Afrinic, for
reasons I do not know) There is no arpa delegation from the RIR.
213.136.96.104 There is a delegation but no PTR
...
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
