 |  |
Re: reverse DNS questions
From: Mia''s Virtual Post Office
Date: Thursday, September 4, 2003
Time: 10:07:17 pm
On Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 09:54 PM, Michael Wise wrote:
> Their reasoning...partially; their actions...no.
>
> They claim that they want to block smtp transactions from so-called
> "residential" DSL lines. (whether thy have static IP blocks or not),
> but what their lazy admins are really doing is labelling as
> "residential" and then blocking _ALL_ SBC DSL IP blocks if they do not
> have an rdns suggesting they are being used by a business.
There is NO sane reason to do this. None what so ever. Blocking spam
is easy. You don't do it blocking IP netblock you think contain DSL
users.
>
> Several bad assumptions here:
>
> 1) That somebody paying an extra 10-20% to have their account
> classifies as a "business" one is any more secure than one who has a
> "residential" one.
>
> 2) That SBC "business" DSL customers automatically have an rdns
> suggesting so (they don't)
They should. If they do not report SBC to ARIN. Show up in Chicago
and ask ARIN why they do not? I create PTR record for every customer,
EVERY CUSTOMER. When we set up a new Wireless customer their inverse
DNS is provisioned before their link is installed. Its simple,
required and extremely important.
>
> 3) That "residential" customers can't get an rdns without *.dsl.* or
> *.adsl.* and *pacbell.net.* in it (they can just as easily as
> so-called "business" users.
Whell, that is probably true. All of our wireless customers have
something like customer-netblocknumber-device-network.dslone.com
configured. We do not change these for residential customers. Its
just part of our naming scheme. Call me strange, but I like to be
organized. If they buy a domain name from us an begin hosting on that
IP we will of course modify this. Same goes for Business customers.
Here is a secret. The reason the larger players do not modify DNS
records, especially inverse DNS is because they have such high churn.
Would you really want to be modifying inverse DNS for individual
customers that only sign up for a month or two? It would be a
nightmare. We are small and like to hang onto our customers. We have
a very low churn rate and our average customer is with us 3-4 years.
That said, its not a problem for us to be flexible. It also helps set
us apart.
>
>
> What rr.com should really be doing is blocking users with dymanic
> blocks...and taking out sledge hammer and tarring tens of thousands
> of static and SWIP'd blocks simply because they're too lazy to do some
> homework.
The ultimate problem and thing that everyone needs to realize is that
RR (AOL-TimeWarner) seems to think that they are the only ISP that
matters, the only ISP that exists, and the only ISP that everyone uses.
In reality their userbase accounts for less than 1 10th of a percent
of all ISP's. They are a small player in the overall scheme of things,
but their continued arrogance is indicative of their lack of respect
for others.
Using the mentality that RR uses when it comes to blocking IP ranges,
RR should be in affect blocking themselves. They use a great deal of
IP transit via SBC and they have many more "residential" DSL/Cable spam
users than any other ISP.
>
>
> Of course, their servers; their rules and all that NANAE/Spam-L
> jargon....but I find it a little insulting that a huge spam source and
> a reigning open proxy king like rr.com should all of the sudden be
> johnny-come-lately spam fighter and tell those of us who have, unlike
> rr.com, managed our servers securely for years how we are all of the
> sudden spam pits.
You do not control or limit spam by blocking every IP range that
contains what RR deems to be a potential threat based solely on the
stereotypical user base that Cable/DSL seem to attract.
>
> Their methods are lazy at best...irresponsible and incompetent at
> worst.
It's not that they are lazy, they are just plain arrogant.
>
>
>
> "DSL/cable/dial access"? Wow, you're lumping a whole lot there. I
> would agree if the statement were "DYNAMIC IP DSL/cable.dial
> access"...but lumping all DSL is a big stretch.
>
Anyway, this idea of "DSL IP Space" is bull. How on earth someone can
figure certain blocks are just DSL blocks is beyond me. There is a
logic to the way us ISPs invariably subnet our IP blocks, and the
naming we all use can lead many to believe that an IP address is what
it is. However, blocking a /21 or higher because RR say an IP with the
name blah.dsl.whatever.com is beyond me. How do you think I feel with
dslnetwork.net and dslone.com as domain names for our wireless system?
Not every IP address has a DSL user or a wireless user on it.
I'm sticking to my prediction that the demise of RR and TW and AOL is
on its way.
Regards,
Jeremy Anthony Kinsey
e-mail: jer@mia.net
________________________________________________________
Bella Mia, Inc. www.mia.net
401 Host Drive www.dslone.com
Lake Geneva, WI. 53147 www.hostdrive.com
Phone: (262)248-6759 www.bella-mia.com
Fax: (262)248-6959 www.thednsplace.com
Messages In This Thread:
Return to Digital Point Solutions' Home Page
| home | |
| products | |
| services | |
| support | |
| email lists |
| optigold isp | |
| optigold isp news | |
| home inspection | |
| inspectrix | |
| java companion | |
| oracle | |
| quickdns pro | |
| search engine | |
| veterinary |
| tips | |
| employees | |
| free tools | |
| portfolio | |
| jobs | |
| contact |
888/4-DPOINTSupport:
858/452-3696