Re: IPv6 address literals probably aren't SMTP either

2014-03-26 Thread John Levine
In article 5333970a.6070...@direcpath.com you write: On 3/26/2014 10:16 PM, Franck Martin wrote: and user@2001:db8::1.25 with user@192.0.2.1:25. Who had the good idea to use : for IPv6 addresses while this is the separator for the port in IPv4? A few MTA are confused by it. At the network

Re: IPv6 address literals probably aren't SMTP either

2014-03-26 Thread Robert Drake
On 3/26/2014 11:28 PM, John Levine wrote: It's messier than that. See RFC 5321 section 4.1.3. I have no idea whether anyone has actually implemented IPv6 address literals and if so, how closely they followed the somewhat peculiar spec. R's, John I'm not sure why the SMTP RFC defines

Re: IPv6 address literals probably aren't SMTP either

2014-03-26 Thread John R. Levine
I'm not saying John Klensin shouldn't have a say in how the IPv6 address is defined, but I do think it would be best for everyone to work it out in an official place somewhere so that email software isn't doing the complete opposite of everyone else. Too late. Regards, John Levine,