On Mar 20, 2007, at 8:05 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
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.
In the original message you were responding to, I believe I said that
noticing that someone can't update their reverse tree is arguably
useful for spam scoring. So perhaps the reason that you aren't
seeing more discussion on the part of spam assassins here is not that
they aren't represented in the working group, but rather that nothing
controversial was said. :')
Personally, I feel that spam scoring is a better example to use in
the draft than, say, the ssh example I gave in my earlier email
message. But neither can be claimed to be a *requirement* - it's
just (1) the case for spam scoring is better, and (2) someone who's
considering not populating the reverse tree probably ought to think
about the spam scoring case since, apparently, it is being used (if
that is true).
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
