Paul Wouters wrote: > On Wed, 13 May 2015, Lee Howard wrote: > >> Is there consensus now that ISPs don’t need to provide PTRs for their >> customers? > > No. > > As long as the anti-spam meassures include refusing email from IPv6 > without PTR's, such a consensus would mean taking the ability away from > people running their own mail servers with IPv6 on ISP controlled IPv6. > > Without the PTRs, sadly those IPv6 addresses are not equal peers on the > internet, but only marginally better than a NATed IPv4 address.
yet with those PTR's, we must all laboriously survey and record every machine-generated PTR pattern so that we can train our SMTP servers to pretend that machine-generated PTR RR's don't exist. this is either foolishness or damn foolishness depending on where you are in the spam chain. providers should delegate PTR space with the address space, and let each consumer decide what to do. if a provider does not do this because they don't want their customers to be able to transmit SMTP or otherwise be "equal peers" that is a business decision (and perhaps a political one if last-mile monopoly is involved) not a technical one. this WG's job is to recommend a standard practice, based on engineering matters, which includes engineering economics such as total system cost. simply put, the total system cost with machine-generated PTR's is uselessly high. -- Paul Vixie _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
