Re: rDNS naming conventions (was: Re: SORBS Contact)

[bmanning () vacation karoshi com]

On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 10:21:45AM -0400, Steven Champeon wrote:
> on Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 01:11:50AM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> > > > On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This is also why I took the time to create:
> > > > >
> > > > >    <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-schemes-00.txt>
> >
> > The reason I do not like RDNS naming scheme is because it forces
> > one particular policy as part of the name.
>
> Fair enough. FWIW, I've seen a wide variety of naming schemes (I've
> got a project that collects these as an antispam/anti-botnet measure,
> and so far we've got around 16K conventions documented for 11K domains).

        first...  as a draft, it carries ZERO weight. -IF- it becomes an
        RFC, its targeted status in INFORMATIONAL, e.g no standard of any kind.
        So no one is going to -force- you to implement it.

        hum...  why does this draft remind me of the (in)famous WKS RR?
        what is WKS?  you know, that RR type that specified  the "well known services"
        running on/at the particular lable.

        WKS was depricated, in part due to the fact that "black hats" would
        use WKS to groom thair attack profiles.  Use of the conventions 
        outlined in this draft would be very useful in building targeted
        attacks.  To paraphrase Randy Bush, "I encourage all my competition to 
        implement these guidelines."

--bill