Re: e-postage stamps, was Welcome to the new(ish) ASRG list

I work for an ISP and we've had to deal with issues like this in the 
past. We reject on bad rDNS and other ISPs in our region do the same.

At least when our dedicated-server customers have this problem, the 
rejection messages are usually explicit enough that little to no 
troubleshooting is required. :)

The point however:
Even if only 20% of ISPs reject mail, it would be unprofessional (stupid 
perhaps? insert appropriate insults here) to allow a likely 20% of 
outbound mail to go undelivered due to a silly misconfiguration. 
Therefore, most ISPs already have their reverse records configured 
correctly.

On 17/03/13 08:31, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 3/17/2013 2:12 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
>> Why don't you ask the friend of your friend to give us this list and then cross check it yourself?
>>
>> This list requires data not "I have heard somewhere..."
> It isn't a "friend of a friend". This is my own personal friend
> directly... who explained this situation to me over the phone as he was
> watching the rejections in real time... where he was getting me to talk
> him through fixing his problem and explaining the symptoms to me as it
> was happening. Sorry that I didn't write down the actual domain names.
>
> The situation with a Cox Communications person was Alex Marinkovic,
> answering an e-mail I had sent him... with an e-mail he sent directly to
> me. At the time of his answer, he was "Responsible for the design and
> implementation of all anti-spam/anti-virus systems for the Cox High
> Speed Internet service." to quote from his linked-in page. (Right now,
> I'm actually looking at the e-mail he sent me, dated 8/9/2011 4:58 PM...
> would you like for me to forward that to you off-list?)
>
> We're getting buried in minutia. You've already admitted that Comcast
> does this. I've established that Cox does, too. I'm certain that those
> are not the only large ISPs that do this. BUT THAT IS BESIDES THE POINT...
>
> ...the point is that, as a result of enough recipients' mail systems
> require an rDNS... that the industry, across-the-board, now has a
> commonly accepted "industry standard" that mail sending IPs (a) should
> have an rDNS, and (b) of the ones that don't, they often get blocked,
> and it is then considered the sender's fault.
>
> knit-pick minutia if you like... but neither yours or my opinion doesn't
> change the fact that if an ESP or ISP today hired a CTO who ordered the
> deletion of the rDNS entries for their sending IPs and fought vigorously
> to keep it that way... that person wouldn't last in their job more than
> a week.. probably not more than a day.
>


-- 
__________
Brendan Hide
http://swiftspirit.co.za/
http://www.webafrica.co.za/?AFF1E97