North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article]
- From: Markus Stumpf
- Date: Tue Jan 25 10:28:12 2005
- Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=testkey; d=space.net; b=B20kjN4YoBGTV2+ng8gs/aevYhNcbAFXBUsbo8PZQDqO08Z8E0hZJXYOiiFLt7qK ;
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:41:08AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Lots. I'm sure that there are lots of ISPs/IAPs on NANOG
> that do RFC 2317 style delegations for their customers.
How many is lots?
And how often do the IP addresses of (outgoing) Mailservers change within
a subnet? None of ours has changed in the last 10 years and our
customers (mainly business customers) usually never change them, either.
> Every one of them would need to upgrade their servers to
> support DNAME. Their clients would also need to upgrade
> their servers to support DNAME as they should be stealth
> servers of the parent zone, to allow local lookups to work
> when the external link is down.
If MTAMARK requires DNAME then RFC 2317 style delegations would require
them, too. None of which is true.
1 CNAME 1.0/25.2.0.192.in-addr.arpa.
works exactly the same way
_send._smtp._srv.1 CNAME _send._smtp._srv.1.0/25.2.0.192.in-addr.arpa.
does. No special magic required. One can even use BINDs $GENERATE
statement for that.
Unless I am missing something I don't know of any RFC that prohibits that.
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
"The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally
proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin"
|
