der Mouse wrote:
There are different geographic regions and organizations that refuse to publish reverse DNS.This is true. In my experience being one of them correlates positively, and at least moderately strongly (though of course not perfectly), with being part of the precipitate.
(as opposed to being part of the "solution", I guess)Possibly, this scarceness corroborates the belief that rDNS results are more trustworthy than direct DNS records.
As an anti-abuse effort, some providers [...] do not accept connections without a reverse DNS entry being found.
This used to be typical of FTP servers in the '80s. However, some feedback loop providers apparently make use of it today. Let alone investigations about the PTR target being automatically generated or containing the "dynamic" keyword. IMHO, synthesizing informations on that basis is symptomatic of technologies in their infancy being desperately greedy for data they cannot obtain [otherwise].
As a result, these providers may be unable to communicate with some organizations or geographic regions.Right. So? Someone who doesn't tolerate dashes in domain names won't be able to communicate with rodents-montreal.org, either.
I never heard about dash-intolerants. Are you kidding?
Who is wrong, because in the case of email, reverse DNS is clearly being misused.It's not clear to me that anyone is wrong there, nor that rDNS is being misused.
Much like whois, rDNS is being used in relation with the possibility to individuate who, if any, is responsible for running a host at the given address. DNSBLs, certificates, reputation, etcetera, all rotate around allocations of those IP numbers, but rDNS dependence reveals unreadiness for a truly virtual environment: What if _all_ IPs were dynamic?