Barry Shein wrote the following on 3/27/2014 6:32 PM:
On March 27, 2014 at 14:16 bl...@ispn.net (Blake Hudson) wrote:
Barry Shein wrote the following on 3/27/2014 2:06 PM:
I suppose the obvious question is: What's to stop a spammer from
putting a totally legitimate key
On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:12 PM, Robert Drake rdr...@direcpath.com wrote:
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
On Mar 26, 2014, at 11:26 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:12 PM, Robert Drake rdr...@direcpath.com wrote:
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
On Mar 27, 2014, at 3:24 AM, Franck Martin fmar...@linkedin.com wrote:
On Mar 26, 2014, at 11:26 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:12 PM, Robert Drake rdr...@direcpath.com wrote:
On 3/26/2014 10:16 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
and user@2001:db8::1.25 with
Jimmy Hess wrote the following on 3/26/2014 7:12 PM:
The problem is with SMTP and is probably best addressed in the
application layer through updates to SMTP or required bolt-ons
(e.g SPF or similar); it was just simpler
SPF is useful, but not a complete solution.
I'm curious
John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
There are also some odd things in the spec. For example, according to
RFC 5321 this is not a syntactically valid e-mail address:
mailbox@[IPv6:2001:12:34:56::78:ab:cd]
You aren't allowed to use :: to abbreviate one zero hexadectet according
to RFC 5952.
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Two errors, actually… As an RFC-821 address, it should be user@[IP]:port
in both cases (user@[192.0.2.1]:25 and user@[2001:db8::1]:25).
You have never been able to specify a port number in an email address.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 01:52:27PM +, Tony Finch wrote:
John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
There are also some odd things in the spec. For example, according to
RFC 5321 this is not a syntactically valid e-mail address:
mailbox@[IPv6:2001:12:34:56::78:ab:cd]
You aren't
mailbox@[IPv6:2001:12:34:56::78:ab:cd]
You aren't allowed to use :: to abbreviate one zero hexadectet according
to RFC 5952.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2467
Oh, look at that. I wonder how many people realized that it made an
incompatible change to RFC 4291 four years
On 03/26/2014 08:12 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
As far as i'm concerned if you can force the spammer to use their own
IP range, that they can setup RDNS for, then you have practically won,
for all intents and purposes, as it makes blacklisting feasible, once
again!
Spammers can jump
On March 27, 2014 at 08:51 bl...@ispn.net (Blake Hudson) wrote:
The primary issues I see with SMTP as a protocol related to the lack of
authentication and authorization. Take, for instance, the fact that the
SMTP protocol requires a mail from: and rcpt to: address (more or less
for
Barry Shein wrote the following on 3/27/2014 2:06 PM:
I suppose the obvious question is: What's to stop a spammer from
putting a totally legitimate key into their spam?
It's entirely likely that a spammer would try to get a hold of a key due
to its value or that someone you've done business
Barry Shein wrote the following on 3/26/2014 11:24 PM:
Some will blanche at this but the entire spam problem basically arose
from the crap security in Windows systems, particularly prior to maybe
XP/SP2.
Not sure where all that leads us, however. Better security at those
major exploitation
On March 27, 2014 at 14:16 bl...@ispn.net (Blake Hudson) wrote:
Barry Shein wrote the following on 3/27/2014 2:06 PM:
I suppose the obvious question is: What's to stop a spammer from
putting a totally legitimate key into their spam?
It's entirely likely that a spammer would
On Mar 27, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote:
It's entirely likely that a spammer would try to get a hold of a key due to
its value or that someone you've done business with would share keys with a
business partner . But ideally you'd authorize each sender with a unique
On 3/27/2014 6:51 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
The primary issues I see with SMTP as a protocol related to the lack of
authentication and authorization. Take, for instance, the fact that the
SMTP protocol requires a mail from: and rcpt to: address (more or less
for authentication and authorization
On 03/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections is
playing that uncomfortable game with
one�s own combat boots. And not particularly productive.
If you can figure out how to do effective spam filtering without
looking at
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 07:45:06 -0500
Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote:
On 03/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP
connections is playing that uncomfortable game with
one�s own combat boots. And not particularly productive.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 09:05:52AM -0400, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
most cases, would that not make things easier? So those that want to
run email servers SHOULD be on ISP's that allow for rDNS
configuration for IPv6.
Several years ago now the IETF DNSOP WG worked on a document about
reverse
On 03/26/2014 08:05 AM, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 07:45:06 -0500
Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote:
On 03/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP
connections is playing that uncomfortable game with
one�s
On March 25, 2014 at 23:33 larryshel...@cox.net (Larry Sheldon) wrote:
Is spam fighting really about SMTP? Or is it about abuse of the
transport layer by (among other things) the SMTP?
That is the point, isn't it.
Most see spam as its content.
The real problem with spam is its volume.
Daniel Taylor wrote the following on 3/26/2014 7:45 AM:
On 03/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP
connections is playing that uncomfortable game with
one�s own combat boots. And not particularly productive.
If you can figure
On 3/25/2014 10:41 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
(1) Architectural layers are a protocol design construction, only, which
assist with standardization. They are not a separation of
responsibilities.
Actually, they are specifically a separation of responsibilities.
That the separation doesn't work
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote:
With this in mind, how hard is it for a spamming operation to setup
rDNS for their IPv6 ranges? Not very hard, just like their ability to use
SPF or DKIM (they will do it if it improves their deliverability). This is
On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:31 PM, Cutler James R james.cut...@consultant.com wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections
is playing that uncomfortable game with one’s own combat boots. And not
particularly productive.
That is one of my two big take-aways
On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:47 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:31 PM, Cutler James R james.cut...@consultant.com
wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections
is playing that uncomfortable game with one’s own combat boots.
To my knowledge, there are three impacts that IPv6 implementation makes on an
SMTP implementation. One is that the OS
interface to get the address of the next MUA or MTA needs to use getaddrinfo()
instead of gethostbyname() (and would
do well to observe RFC 6555�s considerations).
In practice
On Mar 26, 2014, at 5:47 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:31 PM, Cutler James R james.cut...@consultant.com
wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections
is playing that uncomfortable game with one’s own combat
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 level the IPv6 address is just a big number. No
On 3/26/2014 11:22 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
What makes IP address mobility possible is mass, unauthorized if not
simply illegal use of others' resources, such as with botnets or
massive exploiting of holes in web hosting sites' software.
Except that compromised personal computers are 'valid' by
On March 26, 2014 at 20:21 d...@dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) wrote:
On 3/26/2014 11:22 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
What makes IP address mobility possible is mass, unauthorized if not
simply illegal use of others' resources, such as with botnets or
massive exploiting of holes in web hosting
Wow, what a lot of NANOG traffic about IPv6 readiness for SMTP!
Please explain my misunderstanding on the following:
1. IPv6 is a Routing Layer Protocol (with some associated helpers, like RA,
ND, DHCP-PD, and the like).
2. SMTP is an Application Layer Protocol, supposedly independent of
On 3/26/2014 午後 12:31, Cutler James R wrote:
Wow, what a lot of NANOG traffic about IPv6 readiness for SMTP!
Please explain my misunderstanding on the following:
1. IPv6 is a Routing Layer Protocol (with some associated helpers, like RA,
ND, DHCP-PD, and the like).
2. SMTP is an
On 3/25/2014 10:31 PM, Cutler James R wrote:
Wow, what a lot of NANOG traffic about IPv6 readiness for SMTP!
Please explain my misunderstanding on the following:
1. IPv6 is a Routing Layer Protocol (with some associated helpers, like RA,
ND, DHCP-PD, and the like).
2. SMTP is an
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections is
playing that uncomfortable game with
one�s own combat boots. And not particularly productive.
If you can figure out how to do effective spam filtering without
looking at the IP addresses from which mail arrives, you
On 3/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP connections is
playing that uncomfortable game with
ones own combat boots. And not particularly productive.
If you can figure out how to do effective spam filtering without
looking at
On 3/26/2014 12:33 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 3/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP
connections is playing that uncomfortable game with
ones own combat boots. And not particularly productive.
If you can figure out how to do
But, as always, I'm not holding my breath.
Is spam fighting really about SMTP? Or is it about abuse of the
transport layer by (among other things) the SMTP?
I don't think that your typical spam recipient cares how the spam got
into her inbox. Anyone who has any familiarity with large scale
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.netwrote:
On 3/25/2014 10:31 PM, Cutler James R wrote:
2. SMTP is an Application Layer Protocol, supposedly independent of
Routing and lower layers of the protocol stack. Various communities have
added connection initiation
39 matches
Mail list logo
