On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Tim Chown wrote:
Received: from s0.nanog.org (s0.nanog.org =
[2001:48a8:6880:95::20]) by crow.ecs.soton.ac.uk (crow.ecs.soton.ac.uk =
[2001:630:d0:f110::25b]) envelope-from =
<[email protected]> with ESMTP id =
m673381995435214jA ret-id none; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 03:03:19 +0100
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=3Ds0.nanog.org) by =
s0.nanog.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from =
<[email protected]>) id 1OWgRQ-000HxK-8m; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 =
02:02:20 +0000
Received: from outgoing03.lava.net =
([2001:1888:0:1:202:b3ff:fe1d:6b98]) by s0.nanog.org with esmtp (Exim =
4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <[email protected]>) id 1OWgPi-000G1S-Si for =
[email protected]; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 02:00:35 +0000
One other thing I also notice is that there is a high correlation between
use of TLS and IPv6, I guess a lot of people with IPv6 clue also enable
TLS:
Received: from s0.nanog.org (s0.nanog.org [IPv6:2001:48a8:6880:95::20])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1B959F
for <[email protected]>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:10:41 +0200 (CEST)
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
