Le Friday 22 August 2014 à 07:16 -0700, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Laurent GUERBY laur...@guerby.net
wrote:
We've been running SMTP over IPv6 with postfix successfully
for over a
year and since 20140818 gmail.com IPv6 MX started to
Le 23 août 2014 à 07:51, Michael Chang thenewm...@gmail.com a écrit :
I was under the impression that it wasn't so much about there being more IPv6
spam as much as tracking IPv6 reputation based on addresses was
computationally infeasible.
If a spammer gets a hold of a /64, then the
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:51:26PM -0700, Michael Chang wrote:
If a spammer gets a hold of a /64, then the spammer can send 18 billion
billion (~2^64) different email addresses, each coming from a different IP
address. Never-mind that a spammer can go to a half-dozen tunnel brokers
and
On 22 Aug 2014, at 17:56, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
I'm not on the gmail team and don't have those numbers. Nick asked me for an
answer, and I gave him what information I have. My assumption was that since
they do receive a lot of email, they have statistics on this, but of
FWIW, I agree with Matthew 100%, especially about the fact that the SMTP
world is changing. It's also worth noting that it's been in constant
(although not always rapid) flux since I first got involved in Internet
stuff 20+ years ago. Back then it was common for any connected system to
be able
On Aug 23, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually I think you should quibble. The issue isn't bad software
used by intermediaries, it's that by design DMARC p=reject breaks a
very common model used by intermediaries. Whether that is a bug or a
feature in DMARC is out of
On 24/08/2014 09:20, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Aug 23, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually I think you should quibble. The issue isn't bad software
used by intermediaries, it's that by design DMARC p=reject breaks a
very common model used by intermediaries. Whether
