[CentOS] postfix tightening

Sat Apr 2 02:59:51 UTC 2005
Mark A. Lewis <mark at siliconjunkie.net>

> > I have never understood the precived connection between reverse DNS 
> > and spam. I have seen some go as far as if the reverse DNS does not 
> > match the senders domain they will kick it.
> ----
> it doesn't seem to be too difficult to have the smtp server 
> helo to be locatable in reverse dns - the thing that this 
> blocks is people running smtp servers on dynamic ip space and 
> forces them to use a smart host - can't see what the big deal 
> is here since it provides accountability for the mail path.

It's not a matter of difficult, nor does it provide any accountability.
I can tell my mail server to helo whatever I want and make the ptr say
whatever I want. It doesn't authenicate anything. Nor does someone
running an SMTP server with a dynamic address prove anything about it
being spam. The big problem that I have with it is that it completely
ignores shared hosting. Not everyone wants someone to be able to look at
the mail headers and know what company is hosting them, particularly a
business. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to not have it.
> Now that AOL is doing this, it pretty much dictates that smtp 
> servers comply with this restriction. I don't see the problem with it.
So, you are saying that we should let AOL dictate standards? I see a
HUGE problem with that.

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.