On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > Which 12 were repeated? > > > The following essentially tell me nothing more than "as I have said before, > I think reverse mapping in the DNS is useless". Actually, the messages contain explanations of why various theories about the dependability of reverse mapping can't be relied on, and other schemes which were brought up to show its usefulness. Many such schemes were brought up, and refuted. That doesn't make the refutations repetitive--though one might wonder why people keep proposing schemes that aren't really substantially different. Suppressing the refutations doesn't make such schemes any more workable. However, as was also shown, Rob Austein has a history of promoting the use of reverse for authentication, and in doing so, participated in causing the BSD r-command exploits, and the myth of open-relay abuse, and other problems which trace themselves to inappropriate trust placed in in-addr. Rob doesn't seem to have learned much from these experiences, and continues to promote the same position he held in 1986. I don't think you understood the messages, or the issues being complained about: Neither Rob's complaint, nor my complaint. Perhaps you could take some more time to investigate and fully understand the issues. > http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00027.html The message above is unique. It offers a new statement for the in-addr-required draft, after the issue was restarted inappropriately by Rob Austein. According to Rob, the in-addr-required draft is a "new topic" unrelated to the previous topic of dropping support for reverse. (This is in my complaint, which it seems you haven't read.) > http://www.cafax.se/dnsop/maillist/2003-04/msg00000.html The message above is a complaint that Rob re-started the debate with a new angle--It is not a repetition. You will note that 27 messages were made on the list between these posts. The remaining messages do not need to be individually addressed. --Dean