On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:39:59 -0400 (EDT) Dean wrote:
DA Real anti-spam groups at large ISPs don't use reverse DNS for spam
DA filtering. There have been attempts to do so in the past, but those
DA ended in (sometimes well-publicized) disasters.
This is patently and provably false. AOL clearly
Dear colleagues,
Dean has already made clear, in a previous exchange on this list, that
he does not think draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations in
any revision, past or future, can be made to address his concerns; my
understanding is that this is why he has offered an alternative draft
On Mar 26, 2007, at 7:33 AM, Robert Story wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:39:59 -0400 (EDT) Dean wrote:
DA Real anti-spam groups at large ISPs don't use reverse DNS for spam
DA filtering. There have been attempts to do so in the past, but
those
DA ended in (sometimes well-publicized)
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Robert Story wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:39:59 -0400 (EDT) Dean wrote:
DA Real anti-spam groups at large ISPs don't use reverse DNS for spam
DA filtering. There have been attempts to do so in the past, but those
DA ended in (sometimes well-publicized) disasters.
On 26-Mar-2007, at 14:48, Dean Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Robert Story wrote:
DA Assuming an 'apparent inability to update reverse tree' is a
false
DA assumption:
But you can't dictate other peoples assumptions. Assumptions are
often
based on ones personal experiences, and
JINMEI Tatuya / wrote:
At Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:30:46 -0500,
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Title : Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping
Author(s) : D. Senie, A. Sullivan
Filename:
