[anti-abuse-wg] Reliance on rDNS

On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 16:28:51 -0700
"Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
> "Niall O'Reilly" <Niall.oReilly+ripe at no8.be> wrote:
> >On 4 Aug 2017, at 20:46, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:  
> >> I do agree completely.  However as is made clear by this exact
> >> case, there are enough inbound mail servers still left on this
> >> planet that do not follow that rule {to accept only inbound mail
> >> from SMTP clients  
> >  with reverse DNS implmented}
> >  This is not a "rule", but a heuristic of first approximation which,
> >  if relied on exclusively and dogmatically, has the consequences of
> >  arbitrarily penalizing the innocent, breaking network neutrality,
> >  and violating the end-to-end principle.
> >  Any of these consequences is itself an abuse.
> >  Email administrators and reputation brokers have other information
> >  and processes available to them which can be used to mitigate these
> >  consequence when appropriate.  Failure to do so is either to play
> >  the bully or complacently to take the lazy option.  
> 
> Well, actually, I do agree, mostly, with Niall O'Reilly's primary
> point here, and I apologize for having been a little less than
> precise in my earlier comments on this topic.
> 
I do not agree with  Niall O'Reilly's primary point at all, I do agree
with some of your reply. Neither of your points address the balance
between rights and responsibilities. 

People has to be responsible for their abuse. So, "net neutrality" the
"innocent" and the "end-to-end principle" has to be in balance with
other OBVIOUS inalienable rights.

Instead of a long and technical response I am simply going to say this:

If you provide a service of transporting email for other people (much
like a bank handling money) you must at the very least have a fixed IP
number and that IP number must have a reverse name configured to it.

Insisting that you should have the "freedom" to relay bulk emails from
random IP numbers with no reverse zone configured, even if presenting
an eloquent argument is fatally flawed and frankly, stupid.

And, rDNS is not the be all and end all of anything, it is simply one
of hundreds of important factors in relaying email. 

If all email servers (100% and not +-75%) where to enforce this,
basic rule, there would be less reason for criminals to hijack IP
ranges.

So, as the majority already do impose this simple and obvious
restriction, I am simply pleading and advocating to the remaining,
small minority.

Some of which are also on this list...

Andre