Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: MTA MARK vs port 25 filtering?

["Alan DeKok" <aland@ox.org>]

John Levine <asrg@johnlevine.com> wrote:
> It depends whether you have a static or DHCP address.  If it's static,
> you should be able to set the mark data for the range assigned to you
> just like you should be able to set your own rDNS.

  Ideally, LMAP should be more than a simple list of IP's permitted to
send spam.  We can populate reverse DNS with other pieces of
information, like:

  - reference: company "foo" says I'm not a spammer

  - permissions: IP bar is OK

  - policy: IP/mask is OK, so long as the message is signed with key "pgp"

  - pointer: go ask roaming.isp.example.com if it's OK.


  Many of the concerns about dynamic DNS and small domains can be
addressed with trivial additions to the protocol.  The fundamental
concept remains the same, though: publishing information as to how the
recipient can tell that certain messages were sent consentually.

> I also realize that the practical issue of getting semi-sentient
> ISPs to provide a way for their static IP customers to update their
> own rDNS is a problem.

  Which is why unlike MTA-MARK, LMAP uses RNDS rooted from domains,
and not in-addr.arpa

  Alan DeKok.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg