Subject: Re: [dnsop] Re: Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required

From: Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:43:12 +0100

--On den 30 januari 2006 15.55.44 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:48:18PM +0000,
>  Jim Reid <[email-masked]> wrote 
>  a message of 19 lines which said:
> 
>> doesn't seem to create too many false positives.
> 
> You mean that you received no email complaint from people who were
> blocked?

I have seen an increased amount of requests for PTR records pointing to
mail servers recently. Whether this wg approves of it or not, the practice
(no PTR, no service) from my horizon, seems to be increasing. Given that
situation, there alone lies a reason for publication.  

Also, for the people not entirely happy with this practice (ie. rejecting 
!PTR SMTP) the increased amount of PTRen gained from a BCP should help put
an end to the usefulness of the blocking practice ;-) 

While the above indeed is written somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I would like to
utter my  support of the document --  I could actually see it contain even
stronger recommendations. However, given the nature of RFCen, I think the
document is good, and it would do the Internet society good to have it as
BCP. 

-- 
Måns Nilsson                    Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204   cell                      KTHNOC
+46 8 790 6518  office                 MN1334-RIPE

It's NO USE ... I've gone to "CLUB MED"!!