Or he could just not like NSL and the fact the ISP's are required
to abide by them. If people want their email going through where
it can be snooped apon that is their perogative. Just don't force
people to have to use I-WILL-SNOOP-ISP!!!
Who said anything about being required to use your ISP'
In message <20140325233557.6311.qm...@joyce.lan>, "John Levine" writes:
> In article <3d7d0845-cb25-4c05-8fab-f5728c860...@heliacal.net> you write:
> >The OP doesn't have control over the reverse DNS on the AT&T 6rd.
>
> Ah, OK, you're saying that their IPv6 isn't ready for prime time.
>
> >One
In article <3d7d0845-cb25-4c05-8fab-f5728c860...@heliacal.net> you write:
>The OP doesn't have control over the reverse DNS on the AT&T 6rd.
Ah, OK, you're saying that their IPv6 isn't ready for prime time.
>One would hope that with IPv6 this would change, but the attitude of looking
>down on en
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:07:16 -0400, Laszlo Hanyecz
wrote:
One would hope that with IPv6 this would change, but the attitude of
looking down on end subscribers has been around forever.
And for damn good reasons (read: foolish and easy to trick into becoming a
spam source.) Granted, "enterpr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 3/25/2014 2:38 PM, Elizabeth Zwicky wrote:
> Local policy, sure; local DMARC policy, wait what?
My goof. Apparently just local policy sans DMARC.
- - ferg
- --
Paul Ferguson
VP Threat Intelligence, IID
PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2
-BEGIN
The OP doesn't have control over the reverse DNS on the AT&T 6rd. Spam
crusades aside, it can be seen as just another case of 'putting people in their
place', reinforcing that your end user connection is lesser and doesn't entitle
to you to participate in the internet with the big boys. How do
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:57:15PM -0600, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> Nothing wrong with my mail server setup, except the lack of RDNS.
> Lacking reverse should be one of many things to consider with
> rejecting e-mails, but should not be the only condition.
Lack of rDNS means either (a) there is somet
In article <5331edab.8000...@2mbit.com> you write:
>On 3/25/14, 11:56 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> I think this would be a good time to fix your mail server setup.
>> You're never going to get much v6 mail delivered without rDNS, because
>> receivers won't even look at your mail to see if it's authent
>This seems like to sort of problem that Mailops or MAAWG should
>be hammering out.
Of course MAAWG is working on it. But don't hold your breath.
R's,
John
On 3/25/14, 3:33 PM, Laszlo Hanyecz wrote:
The usefulness of reverse DNS in IPv6 is dubious. Maybe the idea is
to cause enough pain that eventually you fold and get them to host
your email too.
Well, like I said, there is nothing wrong with using rdns as part of a
score in how legit a messag
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Laszlo Hanyecz wrote:
> The usefulness of reverse DNS in IPv6 is dubious. Maybe the idea is to
> cause enough pain that eventually you fold and get them to host your email
> too.
Heh, I say the same things about DMARC where a lot of the major
proponents offer al
DMARC says nothing about rDNS, and given how late in the game
DMARC comes, it seems like an odd place to enforce rDNS.
Local policy, sure; local DMARC policy, wait what?
Elizabeth
On 3/25/14, 2:12 PM, "Paul Ferguson" wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA256
>
>Isn't t
The usefulness of reverse DNS in IPv6 is dubious. Maybe the idea is to cause
enough pain that eventually you fold and get them to host your email too.
-Laszlo
On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:57 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> On 3/25/14, 11:56 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> I think this would be a good time to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Isn't this just a local policy issue with handling DMARC? I know for
sure at least one other (very large) organization that (also) rejects
messages which do not have an rDNS entry, and it is a local DMARC policy.
- - ferg
On 3/25/2014 1:57 PM, Brie
On 3/25/14, 11:56 AM, John Levine wrote:
I think this would be a good time to fix your mail server setup.
You're never going to get much v6 mail delivered without rDNS, because
receivers won't even look at your mail to see if it's authenticated.
CenturyLink is reasonably technically clued so it
On 2014-03-25, Mikael Abrahamsson sent:
> I have repeatedly tried to get people interested in methods of
> making it possible for ISPs to publish their "per-customer"
> allocation size, so far without any success. Most of the time I
> seem to get "we did it a certain way for IPv4, it works, we
> d
In article <5331c054.8040...@2mbit.com> you write:
>On 3/25/14, 11:23 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> Large mail providers all agree that v6 senders need to follow good
>> mail discipline, but are far from agreeing what that means. It
>> certainly means proper rDNS, but does it mean SPF? DKIM on all th
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> On 3/25/14, 11:23 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>
>> Large mail providers all agree that v6 senders need to follow good
>> mail discipline, but are far from agreeing what that means. It
>> certainly means proper rDNS, but does it mean SPF? DKIM o
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, John Levine wrote:
It says a lot about the state of the art that people are still making
uninformed guesses like this, non ironically.
Yep, SMTP and the whole spam fighting part of the Internet, isn't ready
for IPv6. This is not IPv6 fault.
I have repeatedly tried to ge
On 3/25/14, 11:23 AM, John Levine wrote:
Large mail providers all agree that v6 senders need to follow good
mail discipline, but are far from agreeing what that means. It
certainly means proper rDNS, but does it mean SPF? DKIM on all the
mail? TLS on the connections? At this point, I don't kn
>If you want to do address-based reputations for v6 similar to v4, my guess is
>that it will start to aggregate to at least the /64 boundary ...
It says a lot about the state of the art that people are still making
uninformed guesses like this, non ironically.
On the one hand /64 is too coarse,
101 - 121 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
