> > On 09/04/09 2:35 PM, "Matus UHLAR - fantomas" <uh...@fantomas.sk> wrote: > > > OK, I don't want to bitch, I'm searching for some valid informations, > > > mostly > > > about their "best practices".
> On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 15:55 -0400, Neil Schwartzman wrote: > > Well there certainly has been some discussion on the MAAWG senders' list > > about naming conventions and clarity or rDNS resolution HELO, and so on and > > it is something *we* recommend to our certified and safelisted clients > > (beyond FQ rDSN which is a requirement), but blocking on something that is > > far far far from an industry standard? I'd suggest that is silly at best, > > but "do tell us how that works out for you" as the phrase goes. On 09.04.09 15:06, McDonald, Dan wrote: > I won't block on it alone, but if someone wants a whitelist entry, they > have to have rDNS correct. And preferably an SPF or DKIM policy.... seems not just "correct" but even satifsying some kind of "best practices" which means not to mention your ISP, and apparently containing some "mail", "firewall" or "gateway" prefix. Good to know for companies that host their MX pools by other providers. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
