Re: [Asrg] What are the IPs that sends mail for a domain?

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 19 June 2009 09:43 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D09B3A6A81 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -19.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mMyuuvlyqw2z for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [208.31.42.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 286083A6890 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:43:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 41105 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2009 09:43:27 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (208.31.42.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 19 Jun 2009 09:43:27 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k0906; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=YEcsUhgAujlLJoMmUc8tqb2lLGp8hRMmz8xT8kqicfQ=; b=jPBa/V7MkE823MQ6LJ3TrpHB5riPMbKgLUTJp7hTZwoz+8qwlBRyFk2ivuwjDVFNgvNN5ILlejw4D/cM/eUatql3ZFlS3oX0ve+2kAb9tFdFNHa1yI32IjM/l5HoHnDeHDokP2B94zKFVrtJ8pqonqPMh6XCFuZWvFB7TaZpid0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k0906; bh=YEcsUhgAujlLJoMmUc8tqb2lLGp8hRMmz8xT8kqicfQ=; b=SvGDeJWPV9A5HSQaZ8uXgDe9yvZxKsp4m01JBXE2bmAdX2tbSC8EBVRxbrM3Hi2ZQ9TfUaTjkYRWAX1yCGHuND2i7/eealO6xNTA8JhEAXTL7tkwf67l1N+vFXSNxw/U24XRPWdDCqzVRPF+r0ZXO9lDTak1/+dbGMjcjke9Goc=
Date: 19 Jun 2009 09:43:26 -0000
Message-ID: <20090619094326.2370.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: asrg@irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <200906182200.SAA05569@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Organization:
Cc:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] What are the IPs that sends mail for a domain?
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:43:18 -0000

>Offhand, I don't see anything there that explains what's wrong with
>putting records other than PTR under an rDNS zone.  Certainly _some_
>non-PTR record types cause no problems, such as CNAME and zone cut
>administrative records like SOA and NS.  In short, I don't see what's
>wrong with XM from a technical standpoint.  What am I missing?

As I recall, it was about systems that "know" that there'll never
be anything but PTR, zone cuts, and maybe CNAME in the rDNS.  In
theory it could be fixed, but as we know the difference betweeen
theory and practice is greater in practice than it is in theory.

R's,
John