From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Dec 14 17:58:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA05216 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 17:58:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from scanner.worldgate.com (scanner.worldgate.com [198.161.84.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA05208 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 17:58:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcs@znep.com) Received: from znep.com (uucp@localhost) by scanner.worldgate.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with UUCP id SAA06965; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:57:57 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (marcs@localhost) by alive.znep.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA05661; Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:58:40 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:58:39 -0700 (MST) From: Marc Slemko To: Greg Lehey cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: weird IP address In-Reply-To: <19971215122417.32812@lemis.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 1997 at 05:41:29PM -0700, Marc Slemko wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Ulf Zimmermann wrote: > > > >>> Huh? Why are you saying they are doing reverse DNS entries? Nothing > >>> posted here suggests that. > >> > >> Yes, they do: > >> > >> Gatekeeper ulf /home/ulf > nslookup 111.111.111.111 > >> Server: gatekeeper.Alameda.net > >> Address: 207.90.181.2 > >> > >> Name: NS1.MINDGFX.NET > >> Address: 111.111.111.111 > > > > They should not be doing that because it is very incorrect. I will see if > > they can be convinced to stop doing this horrible thing. > > Good idea. Why not go and explain what they're doing and ask them > nicely to stop. > > Seriously, you've seen the reaction of one of these people already. > They're doing it deliberately to circumvent spam filters which check > for valid domains and addresses. I'm getting to the stage where I > think that global legislation is imperative to be able to do something > about these criminals. No, it is the InterNIC that is doing this. This current issue (putting bogus reverse DNS entries in for certain host records) is very difficult from creating bogus domains just so they exist to spam from. Note that just creating a bogus domain with bogus nameservers will not be sufficient to get past most valid-domain filters. I certainly do intend to find out why the InterNIC is doing it and ask them nicely to stop.