On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:50:20AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
There are enough services that require a working reverse for not
registering to be a problem.
Please name one. When we went through this argument in DNSOP some
years ago, we were unable to reach consensus on that claim. I'd be
delighted to learn it is true, but I haven't so far found a convincing
story.
If the incoming TCP/25 call comes from an IPv4 address with working
forward/reverse is used as one of many parameters to rate liklyhood of the
email being a spam.
I am not saying this is going to work the same in IPv6, but my money would
be that serious MTA owners would continue to emulate this, by not running
SLAAC on their MTA:s and just having a single static address and giving a
proper forward/reverse DNS to this address.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-spam_techniques#PTR.2Freverse_DNS_checks>
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
