著者: Patrick Starrenburg 日付: To: exim-users 題目: [Exim] Re: Example of legit email rejected by testing on reverse IP lookup
"Leonardo Boselli" <leo@???> writes:
> The core of the problem is that
> THERE IS NO ACCEPTED RULE THAT SAYS THAT IN A BLOC
> SHULD BE ONLY STATIC OR ONLY DYNAMIC HOSTS !!!
> So it is perfectly legitime to give a group of static addresses out of
> a dynamic block. After all this would also simplify routing.
> So, if one want to block DU it should do on actual addresses, not
> on large blocks
Suresh Ramasubramanian <mallet@???> writes:
> You think everybody allocating /29s takes the time and trouble to swip
> it in ARIN?
Well this *has* promoted some lively discussion :-) just to clarify - I was
essentially talking about situations related to ISP's whose *primary* business
is more 'consumer' level dial-up and/or cable/DSL. These are the sort of
companies with large IP blocks which are more likely to end up having those
blocks being blocked by organisations like MAPS in a DUL type list resulting
in people feeling a bit blocked out. If you get my drift :-)
Re: the /29's (or /28) address ranges, maybe if the ISP's put a bit more effort
into registering these blocks - people *are* paying for them - then maybe guys
like James Roberts paying for 'business' Internet connection + net block would
not be facing the issues he is today. Our company has eight offices across
Europe with either /28 and /29 net blocks in each office and I expect (demand)
from our suppliers that these blocks are properly assigned to our company. I
believe it is a reasonable expectation. Well it is the common expectation here
in Europe, both from suppliers and customers...
> ... and more importantly, after having received a 5xx.
