Re: best practices for PTR naming and whois (was, sadly, Re: ArrogantRBL list maintainers)

["O'Reirdan, Michael" <Michael_OReirdan () Cable Comcast com>]

MAAWG has published an approach that it recommends is taken to share
information as to nature of IP space. This may be of interest here.

It can be found here: http://www.maawg.org/about/publishedDocuments

Mike

 


On 12/10/09 11:11 AM, "Michael Thomas" <mike () mtcc com> wrote:

> On 12/10/2009 07:54 AM, Steven Champeon wrote:
> > > In a nutshell, if you're not clearly indicating mail sources as mail
> > > sources, don't expect great deliverability. If you're running a Web
> > > hosting shop and don't have rate-limited outbound smarthosts, expect all
> > > your clients' mail to be suspected of being phishing scams. If you run a
> > > corporate network that allows unsecured outbound port 25 via NAT, you
> > > lose. If you run a university network (or part of one) without clearly
> > > distinguishing between server infrastructure and student-use end nodes,
> > > you really might want to rethink that. And if you're a consumer ISP that
> > > allows both static and dynamic assignments or serves both residential
> > > and commercial under the same useless generic naming convention, you are
> > > Making It Harder for the rest of us, which is an automatic upgrade path
> > > to reflexive blocking of all traffic. Oh, and if it's out of your control
> > > or what you consider your responsibility, SWIP it and label it clearly
> > > so we can figure out what it is and decide whether we want it as part
> > > of our view of the Internet. Keep your whois up to date and indicate
> > > if nothing else whether a given block is static or dynamically assigned,
> > > residential or corporate.
>
> I'd say that Mikael Abrahamsson's sentiment (or at least the way I read
> it) would be a better start: take a step back and ask what the problem is.
> Naming conventions blah, blah, blah all started from the _lack_ of a
> standard and trying to educe knowledge from chaos. In other words, a
> bunch of hacks. Which doesn't work especially well, especially when
> every RBL has its own hack.
>
> If IETF can do something here, which seems plausible, it would be to actually
> define the problem and _then_ write a protocol to fit the needs of the
> problem. Maybe it's using DNS, maybe it's not. Maybe it uses naming
> conventions
> (ick), probably it does not. But if it were standardized, it would at least
> be predictable which the current situation manifestly is not.
>
> To Crocker's point though: if IETF came up with a way to publish your
> network's
> dynamic space (assuming that's The Problem!), would operators do that? Or is
> this another case where the energy barrier is too high?
>
> Mike