> Paul <mailto:p...@nohats.ca> > Friday, October 31, 2014 6:50 AM > Not sure why Paul Vixie wants to relegate my IPv6 address to third > class citizen that's not good enough to be a peer on the Internet for > port 25.
your question is a nonsequitur. i have no such desire. > I'd ask him, but his mail server refuses my email due to my ISPs lack > of reverse IPv6 :p if you have a business grade connection to the internet, you should be able to establish a PTR for each real host. if you have a consumer grade connection, and your ISP is manufacturing PTR's at large scale, then your ISP's pattern for such manufacture is likely to be listed at <http://www.enemieslist.com/> along with all the other manufactured PTR patterns, and as such, my mailer would have rejected your e-mail by the extra step of ignoring your manufactured PTR. in other words i didn't relegate your address to third party status. that bed was on fire when you laid down on it. > > I'm all for anti-spam heuristics, but checking the reverse is simply a > method that's causing too many false positives, on top of punishing > "early" adopters of IPv6 and yet, every proposal i've seen concerning IPv6 PTR screams silently, "PTR is an old-internet concept which no longer applies." it's as if we were trying to placate a bunch of apps that didn't understand classless inter-domain routing (CIDR) with its variable length prefixes, and rather than fix the apps, we're synthesizing acceptable metadata for them, at great complexity cost, and zero information benefit. -- Paul Vixie
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
