You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives

RE: [anti-spam-wg] Fwd: IRT abuse-mailbox things...

  • From: Jørgen Hovland jorgen@localhost
  • Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:11:44 +0100

-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Stumpf [
] >Because nobody knows them ... just like so much other RRs (e.g. SSHFP). And you don't think popularity has anything to do with usability? >> RP records don't scale, are unconcise and lack important features. > > Which "features" do they lack? > Why don't they scale? 2NF > Just because I am authorative for some ip-address doesn't mean I am the > responsible person. > > Define "authoritative". Just because I have a NS pointer for my reverse ip-address directed to me doesn't mean I am the responsible person. DNS has in fact nothing to do with the responsibility of a service or machine behind an ip-address. > And define the difference to "responsible person". If I understood your question; RP records can ergo be manipulated by third parties. >> RP record can never be translated into an email address. > >Sure it can. Just like the contact in the SOA can. (btw. yours >cannot, as someone has added an invalid character "@" to the SOA >RNAME of your zone: My SOA is non-RFC-compliant. Do you want me to be that with RP's too? > RFC1193 defines an easy, clear and agreed on way to do so: The first field, <mbox-dname>, is a domain name that specifies the mailbox for the responsible person. Its format in master files uses the DNS convention for mailbox encoding, identical to that used for the RNAME mailbox field in the SOA RR. The root domain name (just ".") may be specified for <mbox-dname> to indicate that no mailbox is available. My statement is still valid. >> There is no such thing as a responsible person. > >Blah. > RFC1183: > The responsible person for zone database > purposes is named in the SOA RR for that zone. This section > describes an extension which allows different responsible persons to > be specified for different names in a zone. >Isn't it funny how a whole section of a RFC handles something that >does not exist? You are arguing that you can do X because Y is doing the same thing without taking X into consideration. That basically means you would jump out of a cliff if all others did the same thing. That is however funny. Responsibility depends on many factors. > Maybe you should read some RFCs and see *how* things work before > claiming that they don't work (again, look at the SOA for I'm sure there are RFCs I haven't read. Your assumptions about my readings are however far from correct. >Yeah, it is really bad to have a defined and standardized interface. It is the mandatory part I believe is bad, not necessarily the interface itself. >It is much better to find ones way through muddleheaded websites or call >international operators for a phone number and spend 30 minutes on a >expensive international line, while being connected to 20 persons, >none of which understands the problem and connects you to just >someone other with the same non-qualification. Exaggerating, are we? Cheers,