On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:14:36 +0200 Lucky Green
wrote:
> I *have* PTR records for my IPv6 addresses. What I don't know is
> which PTR records will make Gmail happy. SPF PTR records clearly do
> not do the trick.
I think this conversation has, at this point, gone well beyond the
scope of the list. T
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:27:14PM -0700, Taral wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Lucky Green wrote:
> > In its cryptic explanation of the bounces, Google makes one thing clear:
> > whatever
> > reason they have to bounce the email, that reason only applies to IPv6. I
> > believe
> > this
On Sep 4, 2013 12:14 AM, "Lucky Green" wrote:
> I *have* PTR records for my IPv6 addresses. What I don't know is which
PTR records will make Gmail happy. SPF PTR records clearly do not do the
trick.
SPF uses TXT records, not PTR ones. Can you share your IPv6 address? I'll
take a look.
- JP
_
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Lucky Green wrote:
> In its cryptic explanation of the bounces, Google makes one thing clear:
> whatever
> reason they have to bounce the email, that reason only applies to IPv6. I
> believe
> this is wrong.
It only applies to IPv6 because applying it to IPv4 wou
On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 06:09:15PM -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:
> For IPv4, that's a relatively normal way to do things,
> though if example.com is commercial,
> smtp.example.com might actually be a load-balanced bunch of servers
> in xx.yy.zz.0/24
> instead of just one machine, or they might be hidd
At 01:53 PM 8/29/2013, Taral wrote:
Oh, wait. I misread the requirement. This is a pretty normal
requirement -- your reverse DNS has to be valid. So if you are
3ffe::2, and that reverses to abc.example.com, then abc.example.com
better resolve to 3ffe::2.
For IPv4, that's a relatively normal way
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 01:53:29PM -0700, Taral wrote:
> Oh, wait. I misread the requirement. This is a pretty normal
> requirement -- your reverse DNS has to be valid. So if you are
> 3ffe::2, and that reverses to abc.example.com, then abc.example.com
> better resolve to 3ffe::2.
Right, so if you
Oh, wait. I misread the requirement. This is a pretty normal
requirement -- your reverse DNS has to be valid. So if you are
3ffe::2, and that reverses to abc.example.com, then abc.example.com
better resolve to 3ffe::2.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, A
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Taral wrote:
> Oh, wait. I misread the requirement. This is a pretty normal
> requirement -- your reverse DNS has to be valid. So if you are
> 3ffe::2, and that reverses to abc.example.com, then abc.example.com
> better resolve to 3ffe::2.
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Taral wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Lucky Green
> wrote:
> > "Additional guidelines for IPv6
> >
> > The sending IP must have a PTR record (i.e., a reverse DNS of the
> sending IP) and it should match the IP obtained via the forward DNS
> resolution
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Lucky Green wrote:
> "Additional guidelines for IPv6
>
> The sending IP must have a PTR record (i.e., a reverse DNS of the sending IP)
> and it should match the IP obtained via the forward DNS resolution of the
> hostname specified in the PTR record. Otherwise,
> Since forward and reverse DNS will rarely match for IP addresses used by
> individuals
> rather than service providers, this change precludes home users of
> IPv6 from sending email to Gmail acccount.
> Note that this new restriction imposed by Gmail only applies to IPv6
> addresses, not
> I
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 01:47:01PM -0400, Phill wrote:
> (This is the last week before school goes back which is stopping me getting
> to the big iron and my coding platform if folk are wondering where the code
> is).
>
>
> I had a discussion with some IETF types. Should I suggest a BOF in Vanc
(This is the last week before school goes back which is stopping me getting to
the big iron and my coding platform if folk are wondering where the code is).
I had a discussion with some IETF types. Should I suggest a BOF in Vancouver?
Maybe this is an IRTF effort rather than IETF. One thing tha
14 matches
Mail list logo
