Re: Reverse Dns Question...is it really necessary or not?

Steve Friedl wrote:

>On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 07:32:23PM -0400, Kevin Darcy wrote:
>
>
>>I think that bears further looking into. It's _possible_ that the lack
>>of reverse records is the root cause, since some misguided mail
>>servers/admins use reverse lookups as a kind of litmus test for spam (as
>>if spammers couldn't come up with their own reverse records, duh).
>>
>>
>
>AOL refuses incoming email for servers that have no rDNS, so it's
>not exactly oddball mailadmins doing it.
>
I wasn't aware that the mentality had penetrated that far, since we
happen to provide reverse records for all of our outgoing mail servers
on a "courtesy" basis. Thanks for the update. I guess the next round
will be for SPF records to become _de_facto_ mandatory, followed by a
procession of other ill-advised, DNS-advertisement-based schemes to
combat spam...

- Kevin