From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 9 May 2001 15:03:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 9 May 2001 15:03:30 -0400 Received: from [63.95.87.168] ([63.95.87.168]:16645 "HELO xi.linuxpower.cx") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 9 May 2001 15:03:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 15:03:13 -0400 From: Gregory Maxwell To: God Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: ECN: Volunteers needed Message-ID: <20010509150313.C13226@xi.linuxpower.cx> In-Reply-To: <20010509102509.B13226@xi.linuxpower.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.8i In-Reply-To: ; from atm@sdk.ca on Wed, May 09, 2001 at 01:08:31PM -0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 01:08:31PM -0400, God wrote: > On Wed, 9 May 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > > 2) They certainly are. Every once in a while they go through a period of > > silently dropping all email coming from hosts that don't have PTRs. > > This would be no worse. > > ACK .... Which do you mean? : > > -Hosts that don't have valid PTRs (which would be no PTR at all -- Not > deliverable, but not because AOL said so) > > -Hosts that don't have valid PTRs, but DO have at least one valid MX > (Forward and reverse) > > -Same as above, but said hosts MX's forward and/or reverse don't match > > etc etc .... I ask this simply because I DO know of users who have > complained their E-Mail to/from an AOL customer, didn't get there. I've > always assumed .. well ... AOL user .. no comment :) AFIK, mail which contains Path with host names which don't pass a two-way check (forward, reverse the forward) AOL drops. Not always though, MX records are irrelevantly.