Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:02:42 +0000 From: Arthur Chance <freebsd@qeng-ho.org> To: Darren Pilgrim <list_freebsd@bluerosetech.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Reverse DNS question Message-ID: <53049D62.8030903@qeng-ho.org> In-Reply-To: <5304930A.6080004@bluerosetech.com> References: <20140218180620.0807880cf0dd661482e394b9@3dresearch.com> <5303F01C.3030205@bluerosetech.com> <53047301.4050201@qeng-ho.org> <201402191119.02667.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> <5304930A.6080004@bluerosetech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 19/02/2014 11:18, Darren Pilgrim wrote: > On 2/19/2014 1:19 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: >> On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:01:53 AM Arthur Chance >> wrote: >> >>> Slightly changing the topic, does anyone have any idea >>> how IPv6 is going to affect use of RDNS for spam >>> prevention? Given that machines will often have multiple >>> addresses, do we have to bolt down our MTAs to using >>> specific publicly visible addresses, or is RDNS just >>> going to get dropped. I don't have an IPv6 system to >>> play with yet. >> >> From a spam prevention perspective, nothing changes, >> operationally. >> >> My expectation is that mail server operators will require >> similar checks in IPv6. > > Google has made IPv6 RDNS effectively mandatory for communicating with > gmail servers. Thank you. That was the sort of information I was after. So we will have to tell our MTAs to use specific addresses as opposed to wildcard binding.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53049D62.8030903>