[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The anti-abuse rDNS check that FTP gave up



On 07/Oct/11 02:39, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 10/5/2011 11:47 AM, Carl S. Gutekunst wrote:
>
>> The problem is nearly all of our anti-spam measures are empirical.
> 
> The real problem is that you think that empirical foundation matters
> in these sorts of discussions...

Doesn't it?  IMHO, an empirically-founded method is likely to be a
better candidate for standardizing an anti-spam technique than a
purely theoretical work.  After this rationale, e.g., I'll be
pondering on whether or not to propose

   192.0.2.3.abuse-contact.arpa. TXT "abuse@xxxxxxxxxxx" [*]

based on the pros and cons that have been highlighted here, as well as
the interest that this topic seems to elicit.

[*] see http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/msg06625.html
(Actually, RIRs are rather skeptical on the effectiveness of this
tool.  Quite few abuse-mailboxes are currently defined in the whois
databases, and their reliability will be worsen by making them
mandatory.  The outcome of my pondering is currently "no".)