Re: Spam filtering non-features

At 01:50 PM 5/6/2005, Victor Duchovni wrote:
>On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 02:20:42PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > This would be an argument to keep the name check_ptr_access
> > and to make clear that it is the dumbest possible lookup
> > routine that doesn't even follow CNAMEs.
>
>Yes. The requirement is I think to handle unmodified PTR data from DNS
>essentially as-is (modulo syntax issues below).

seems to me most userland tools will follow the CNAME unless you explicitly
tell them not to.
I think CNAMEs should be resolved, if that fails, then "unknown".

This is already what is logged by postfix with the "connect from" or if it
can't be verified, in a warning: message, so the cannonicalized name will
be the one "naturally" used by someone examining their log.

So I would argue for following the CNAME if there is one, and also suggest
that we already know the client PTR as it was reported when the client
connected.

Converting REJECT into DEFER on DNS lookup failure would be a great
improvement.

--
Noel Jones