|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
on Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:40:21PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote: > What does the rest of the internet gain when all IPs have boilerplate > reverse DNS setup for them, especialy with all these wildly differing > and wacky naming "conventions"? I don't care what the rest of the Internet gains, but I can say that knowing something about these "wildly differing and wacky naming conventions" has cut my spam load down by 98% or more. By knowing who names their networks what, even wild-assed guesses at times have kept the DDoS that is spam botnets from destroying the utility of email here. > Isnt it a much simpler world where simply having rDNS lends the > assumption of a supported "static" system as opposed to none? Bwahahaha. You mean "supported static systems" like: not-a-legal-address [140.113.12.106] 66.domain.tld [216.109.16.66] customer-reverse-entry.209.213.197.128 [209.213.197.128] suspended.for.aup.violation [216.41.37.5] unassigned [66.240.153.10] unassigned-64.23.24.128 [64.23.24.128] alameda.net.has.not.owned.this.ip.for.more.then.four.years [209.0.51.16] nolonger.a.customer.cancelled.for.AUPviolation [209.208.31.84] ...just to pick a few? I believe Suresh has already supplied the answer to the question of rDNS having anything to do with staticity. -- hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com join us! http://hesketh.com/about/careers/account_manager.html join us!
|