Um.. Don.. so you're saying that because you've implemented a policy that rejects email based on the contents of the PTR, that this is Telecom's fault and they need to 'fix' it?
Which 'we' are you referring to and what 'discussion' was there? Since when does NZNOG get to create an operational consensus of that nature and then blindly assume that everyone will implement it?

Broadcasting the issue on NZNOG would seem to be inappropriate; this isn't a fault, this is collateral damage of a policy decision you've chosen to make.  I doubt that nzvanlines.co.nz would be the only sender affected, but the impact would seem to be on your customer.  You've made the decision to do this; live with the consequences or change your approach.

The IP of the nzvanlines.co.nz MX record has a valid matching forward/reverse pair - which is the basic reputational check many MTA's perform - the fact it contains suggestions that it might be from a residential-grade connection is not something _I_ would choose to use when attempting to filter spam; (been there; onceuponatime SORBS attempted to run a blacklist that identified dynamic IP address ranges.  Persistent false positives meant that this was eventually a lost cause.)

There are plenty of ways to reduce your spam-count, this wouldn't seem to be a smart one; In this case NZ Van Lines would need to decide if making wholesale changes to the way they deliver email to the world is worthwhile based on their inability exchange mail with your platform, and your customer needs to decide if the disruption to their email service is worth the cost of the measure that's been put in place. And you need to decide whether it's worth the time and energy and potential loss of customers, should they decide to move to a service provider who can effectively filter spam without blocking legitimate email for what seems to be a fairly inappropriate reason.

Mark.




On 10/09/13 22:17, Don Gould wrote: