Ted Lemon wrote: > On May 14, 2015, at 4:15 AM, Shane Kerr <sh...@time-travellers.org> wrote: >> The main argument seems to be that because e-mail uses reverse DNS as >> input into spam detection, it is important. The argument proceeds to >> then say that we want every computer on the Internet to run an SMTP >> server, so every computer needs a PTR record. > > No, the argument _against_ letting ISP customers have PTR records is that it > makes it easier for them to send spam. But nobody is advancing this argument > seriously, so let's not get distracted by it. Paul is the main proponent of > this, and he's also said that he is okay with delegating PTR zones.
for clarity: yes. if the owner of an ISP-connected computer wants it to have PTR's, either so that they can send e-mail or for other purposes, i think that's great, and i think DNSOP should recommend that ISP's support this configuration. it's when the owner doesn't know they are running software that sends or relays spam -- which is now and has for the last few years been the most common case of sending and relaying spam -- that i'd prefer there be no PTR. but even in this case, the PTR's that are machine-generated by ISP's will ultimately show up on steve champeon's list of machine-generated PTR's, so i can reverse their impact by adding more moving parts to the equation. so, my hope is that we could recommend against machine-generated PTR's, and recommend in favour of PTR delegation when a customer requests it, all while understanding that ISP's will do whatever they want after they see whatever recommendations we make. -- Paul Vixie _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
