[SpamCop-List] Re: empty spam...

[Jeff G.]

"Norman Miller" <exfenestrate at spammers.invalid> wrote in message
news:5z4zq6wg26l4.dlg at grc.aosake.net...
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 04:35:24 -0500, Jeff G. wrote:
> > "Mike Easter" <MikeE at ster.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:dmkna7$lkc$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> >> jg wrote:
> >>> and came up with (via Sam Spade):
> >>>
> >>> How do 3 bogus rDNS entries pop up and is this the result of
spammy?
> >>> academic question...
> >> I think but I'm not sure that in this context 'bogus' simply means
> >> that 'paranoid' lookup doesn't work.
> >>
> >> That is, if an IP will rDNS but the rDNS doesn't DNS to the
original
> >> IP that the report sez 'bogus' -- which seems like an unkind term
for
> >> that particular behavior.
> > 'violates Section "INSTRUCTIONS - Adding a host - Add the reverse
> > IN-ADDR entry" of RFC1033 "DOMAIN ADMINISTRATORS OPERATIONS GUIDE"
at
> > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/rfcmarkup.cgi?rfc=1033#page-11
'
> > would be a little long for such a purpose, don't you think?  I think
> > "bogus" fits because the rdns names (the right sides of the PTR
Records)
> > are in fact "not genuine" because tbr1-p014001.la2ca.ip.att.net,
> > tbr1-cl3.sffca.ip.att.net, and tbr1-cb10.st6wa.ip.att.net
> > authoritatively don't exist, and I blame
rm-hostmaster[at]ems.att.com
> > (the person responsible for the zones in all three parent SOA
records)
> > for the whole mess.
> Does it have an adverse affect on routing packets? These are
intermediary
> routers, here, not end-point hosts. I should think that, as long as
the
> packets are being properly routed, there is no _serious_ problem.

No, it does not "have an adverse affect on routing packets", but it does
"have an adverse affect on troubleshooting of routing packets"

-- 
Best Regards,  Jeff G.
I have been a SpamCop User/Member/Customer since 1999 and am a
Moderator of the new web-based forums (now the primary method for
getting help, http://forum.spamcop.net).  Please contact me via Forum
only.