<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Everybody seems to be assuming that the
OP owns the entire /24.<br>
From the sound of his posting that is not the case, it sounds like
he owns a handful in that range and is being punished for his
"neighbors" actions, which for a "spam filter" service is just
plain daft.<br>
<br>
On 10/01/13 16:59, Noel Butler wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1357797557.7881.11.camel@tardis" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="GtkHTML/3.28.3">
On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 13:08 +1000, Julian DeMarchi wrote:
<blockquote type="CITE">
<pre>On 01/10/2013 01:04 PM, Paul Fraser wrote:
> Not that I agree with it, but I thought this was pretty much the norm as a spam mitigation technique...
A /32 yes. You can't block a whole /24 for no PTRs... I wouldn't be
running 252 mail servers on one subnet...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
RFC 1912, Section 2.1 says every Internet-reachable host should
have a name and "Make sure your PTR and A records match" and "For
every IP address, there should be matching PTR record in the
in-addr.arpa domain"<br>
<br>
its DNS 101<br>
<br>
but I agree they have taken things to the extreme IF you DID have
some hosts with valid A and PTR's in that block.<br>
<br>
Just as well they are not commonly used, perhaps this is why, just
as bad a apews and a few others.<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>