Subject: Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition Date: Mon, Mar
31, 2014 at 12:17:19AM -0400 Quoting Patrick W. Gilmore (patr...@ianai.net):
On Mar 30, 2014, at 16:40 , Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote:
Subject: Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition
On Mar 29, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
On March 29, 2014 at 08:28 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
So if a spammer or junk mailer could, say, trick you into accepting
mail in those schemes then they get free advertising, no postage
anyhow.
Sure, but how
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
Original Message
From: John Levine
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 11:35 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition
IF the overriding problem is due to an inability to identify
On March 30, 2014 at 04:47 jo...@iecc.com (John Levine) wrote:
When people talked of virtual currency over the years, often arguing
that it's too hard a problem, how many described bitcoin with its
cryptographic mining etc?
None, but it shouldn't be hard to look at the way bitcoin
On March 29, 2014 at 23:26 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
On Mar 29, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
On March 29, 2014 at 08:28 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
So if a spammer or junk mailer could, say, trick you into accepting
mail in those
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 18:05:39 -0700, Matthew Petach said:
system, which does 100,000,000 transactions/day. Facebook's
presentation talks about doing billions *per second*, which if I
Fortunately for Facebook, they don't have to worry about double-spending
problems, and you don't have to worry
Subject: Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition Date: Sat, Mar
29, 2014 at 11:06:11AM -0400 Quoting Patrick W. Gilmore (patr...@ianai.net):
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Mar 29, 2014, at 3:15, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote:
Quoting
On 3/30/2014 12:11 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
I don't know what WKBI means and google turns up nothing. I'll guess
Well Known Bad Idea?
Since I said that I found the idea described above uninteresting I
wonder what is a WKBI from 1997? The idea I rejected?
Also, I remember ideas being shot down
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 7:40 PM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
The numbers you list in your argument against a micropayment
system being able to function are a fraction of the number of
transactions Facebook deals with in updating newsfeeds for
the billion+ users on their system.[0]
Contrary to the commonly held belief that this is fundamentally
impossible, we propose several solutions that do achieve a reasonable level
of double spending prevention
Yes, that's Bitcoin's claim to fame.
Perhaps the number of zeroes doesn't make a difference; but solving the
double
On Mar 30, 2014, at 16:40 , Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote:
Subject: Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition Date: Sat, Mar
29, 2014 at 11:06:11AM -0400 Quoting Patrick W. Gilmore (patr...@ianai.net):
On Mar 29, 2014, at 3:15, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org
On 3/30/2014 11:17 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Mar 30, 2014, at 16:40 , Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote:
Subject: Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition Date: Sat, Mar
29, 2014 at 11:06:11AM -0400 Quoting Patrick W. Gilmore (patr...@ianai.net):
On Mar 29, 2014
Subject: Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition Date: Thu, Mar
27, 2014 at 10:32:42AM -0400 Quoting John R. Levine (jo...@iecc.com):
Ergo, ad hominem. Please quit doing that.
As a side note I happen to run my own mail server without spam filters
-- it works for me. I might
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Mar 29, 2014, at 3:15, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote:
Quoting John R. Levine (jo...@iecc.com):
Ergo, ad hominem. Please quit doing that.
As a side note I happen to run my own mail server without spam filters
-- it works
On Mar 28, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
On March 28, 2014 at 00:06 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
Advertising is a valuable commodity. Free advertising is particularly
valuable, ROI with I close to zero.
But it’s only free if you send it to yourself and
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
On March 28, 2014 at 00:06 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
[snip]
I thought the suggestion was that a recipient (email, or by analogy
postal) could indicate they wanted an email which would cancel the
postage
On March 29, 2014 at 08:28 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
So if a spammer or junk mailer could, say, trick you into accepting
mail in those schemes then they get free advertising, no postage
anyhow.
Sure, but how would they trick you into saying ?I wanted this advertising?
But I think it introduces all sorts of complexities for not much
gain. Needs more thinking, including is this really a problem that
needs to be solved?
Don't forget Vanquish was a complete failure, so why would this be
any different? and do I want Phil Raymond to sue me for violating
the patent
On 3/29/2014 12:59 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
*Postage schemes as proposed with end users email clients 'attaching
postage' simply not workable Not in IPv4. Not in IPv6. Not in IPng
Not in any conceivable future version of IP.
And I insist that we are all wasting our time trying to make SMTP
On March 29, 2014 at 22:37 jo...@iecc.com (John Levine) wrote:
But I think it introduces all sorts of complexities for not much
gain. Needs more thinking, including is this really a problem that
needs to be solved?
Don't forget Vanquish was a complete failure, so why would this be
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:59 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
That way? Make e-mail cost; have e-postage.
Gee, I wondered how long it would take for this famous bad idea to
reappear.
I wrote a white paper ten years ago explaining why e-postage is a
bad idea, and there is no way to
Don't forget Vanquish was a complete failure, so why would this be
any different? and do I want Phil Raymond to sue me for violating
the patent on this exact scheme?
That was a specific reply by me to a specific suggestion of a
mechanism refunding e-postage to the sender if one wanted an
The numbers you list in your argument against a micropayment
system being able to function are a fraction of the number of
transactions Facebook deals with in updating newsfeeds for
the billion+ users on their system.[0]
... which is completely irrelevant because they don't have a double
Although that's useful for some situations it's a not at the heart of
the spam problem, or is just one small facet at best.
People you don't know, like perhaps me right now, will send you email
which isn't spam, and which presumably you're ok with receiving.
So, it's not the overriding problem
IF the overriding problem is due to an inability to identify and
authenticate the identification of the sender, then let us work on
establishing a protocol for identifying the sender and authenticating
the identification of the sender and permitting the receiver to accept
or deny acceptance
On March 29, 2014 at 22:34 jo...@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote:
Don't forget Vanquish was a complete failure, so why would this be
any different? and do I want Phil Raymond to sue me for violating
the patent on this exact scheme?
That was a specific reply by me to a specific
When people talked of virtual currency over the years, often arguing
that it's too hard a problem, how many described bitcoin with its
cryptographic mining etc?
None, but it shouldn't be hard to look at the way bitcoin works and
realize why it'd be phenomenally ill suited for e-postage, just for
On Mar 27, 2014, at 1:38 PM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 27, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
Please explain in detail where the fraud potential comes in.
Spammer uses his botnet of zombie machines to send
On Mar 27, 2014, at 10:31 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
On March 27, 2014 at 12:14 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
On Mar 27, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
On March 26, 2014 at 22:25 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
Actually, a
On Mar 27, 2014 8:01 PM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote:
NANOG arguments on IPv6 SMTP spam filtering.
Deutsche Telecom discusses IPv4-IPv6 migration:
https://ripe67.ripe.net/presentations/131-ripe2-2.pdf
Facebook goes public with their IPv4-IPv6 migration:
Hmmm. Phone accidentally sent email before it was finished.
Indeed. Having been deeply involved leading the technical side of our
transition at my organization for the past three years, I think those who
wait until the IPv6/IPv4 divide is roughly 50/50 or later are going to be
in for a world of
On Mar 28, 2014, at 5:27 AM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 27, 2014, at 1:38 PM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 27, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
This assumes a different economic model of SPAM that I have been lead to
believe exists.
My understanding is that the people sending the SPAM get paid
immediately and that the people paying them to send it are the ones
hoping that the
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 06:22:32 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
This assumes a different economic model of SPAM that I have been lead to
believe exists.
My understanding is that the people sending the SPAM get paid immediately and
that the people paying them to send it are the ones hoping that the
Indeed. Having been deeply involved leading the technical side of our
transition at my organiati
Yeah, IPv6 can be like that.
Helpfully,
John
You say this like having a tax on running a botted computer on the internet
would be a bad thing.
I agree that it would provide a bit of profit to the spammers for a very short
period of time, but I bet it would get
a lot of bots fixed pretty quick.
What would actually happen is that the users
On Mar 28, 2014, at 6:30 AM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
This assumes a different economic model of SPAM that I have been lead to
believe exists.
My understanding is that the people sending the SPAM get paid immediately
and that the
On March 28, 2014 at 00:06 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
Advertising is a valuable commodity. Free advertising is particularly
valuable, ROI with I close to zero.
But it?s only free if you send it to yourself and then approve it. Any
message you send to someone else who
Apropos nothing, I tried to bring up IPv6 with another service
provider today (this being the fourth I've attempted with only one
success) but all I'm getting is:
%BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor ::1000:A000::6 2/7
(unsupported/disjoint capability) 0 bytes
:(
-Bill
--
William D.
LoL
Spellcheck… Helping you correctly spell the incorrect word every time.
Owen
On Mar 26, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
On 03/26/2014 03:56 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Most of the phishing e-mails I've sent don't have a valid reply-to, from, or
return-path; replying to
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 08:26:14 PM Lamar Owen wrote:
You don't. Their upstream(s) in South Africa would bill
them for outgoing e-mail.
nit
Not all of 41/8 is served by South Africa :-).
/nit
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
nit
Not all of 41/8 is served by South Africa :-).
/nit
nit
But a significant portion of it routes through London :-)
/nit
*cough *cough co.tz to co.za, etc., etc.
-Jim P.
On Thursday, March 27, 2014 09:48:09 AM Jim Popovitch wrote:
nit
But a significant portion of it routes through London :-)
/nit
*cough *cough co.tz to co.za, etc., etc.
Perhaps, but that does not mean it's all served by South
African ISP's.
The London trombone is a separate issue.
Mark.
Subject: Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition Date: Wed, Mar
26, 2014 at 03:35:48PM -0400 Quoting John R. Levine (jo...@iecc.com):
It must be nice to live in world where there is so little spam and
other mail abuse that you don't have to do any of the anti-abuse
things
This is totally ignoring a few facts.
A: That the overwhelming majority of users don't have the slightest idea
what an MTA is, why they would want one, or how to install/configure
one. ISP/ESP hosted email is prevalent only partially to do with
technical reasons and a lot to do with technical
Ergo, ad hominem. Please quit doing that.
As a side note I happen to run my own mail server without spam filters
-- it works for me. I might not be the norm, but then again, is there
really a norm? (A norm that transcends SMTP RFC reach, that is --
I know a lot of people who run a lot of mail
Actually, a variant on that that might be acceptable� Make e-postage a
deposit-based thing. If the recipient has
previously white-listed you or marks your particular message as �desired�,
then you get your postage back. If not,
then your postage is put into the recipients e-postage account to
On March 26, 2014 at 22:25 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
Actually, a variant on that that might be acceptable? Make e-postage a
deposit-based thing. If the recipient has previously white-listed you or
marks your particular message as ?desired?, then you get your postage back.
Scott,
You are exactly right, in the current environment the things I'm suggesting
seem unrealistic. My point is that it doesn't have to work the way it does
today, with the webmail providers, the mail originators and the spam warriors
all scratching each others' backs. There has been a LOT
On Mar 27, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
On March 26, 2014 at 22:25 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
Actually, a variant on that that might be acceptable… Make e-postage a
deposit-based thing. If the recipient has previously white-listed you or
marks your
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 27, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
Please explain in detail where the fraud potential comes in.
Spammer uses his botnet of zombie machines to send email from each of them
to his own domain using the user's legitimate
NANOG arguments on IPv6 SMTP spam filtering.
Deutsche Telecom discusses IPv4-IPv6 migration:
https://ripe67.ripe.net/presentations/131-ripe2-2.pdf
Facebook goes public with their IPv4-IPv6 migration:
What if Google, Apple, Sony or some other household brand, sold a TV with
local mail capabilities, instead of pushing
everyone to use their hosted services?
It would suck, because real users check their mail from their
desktops, their laptops, and their phones. Your TV would not have the
Management
MailPlus B.V. Netherlands (ESP)
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Brielle Bruns [mailto:br...@2mbit.com]
Verzonden: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:57 PM
Aan: nanog@nanog.org
Onderwerp: Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition
On 3/25/14, 11:56 AM, John Levine wrote:
I think
: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 4:17 AM
Aan: John R. Levine
CC: NANOG list
Onderwerp: Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:55 PM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
I would suggest the formation of an IPv6 SMTP Server operator's club,
with a system for enrolling
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
Would it make it more unique; if I suggested creation of a new distributed
Cryptocurrency something like 'MAILCoin' to track the memberships in the
club and handle voting out of abusive mail servers: in a distributed
Laszlo Hanyecz las...@heliacal.net wrote:
The usefulness of reverse DNS in IPv6 is dubious.
For most systems yes, but you might as well have it if you are manually
allocating server addresses.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/
Faeroes: Variable 4, becoming southeast
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:35:57PM -, John Levine wrote:
It has nothing to do with looking down on subscribers and everything
to do with practicality. When 99,9% of mail sent directly from
consumer IP ranges is botnet spam, and I think that's a reasonable
estimate, [...]
Data point: it's
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:16:37PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Would it make it more unique; if I suggested creation of a new distributed
Cryptocurrency something like 'MAILCoin' [...]
This is attempt to splash a few drops of water on the people who own
the oceans. It won't work, for the same
On 03/25/2014 10:51 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
[snip]
I would suggest the formation of an IPv6 SMTP Server operator's club,
with a system for enrolling certain IP address source ranges as Active
mail servers, active IP addresses and SMTP domain names under the
authority of a member.
...
As has
Maybe you should focus on delivering email instead of refusing it. Or just
keep refusing it and trying to bill people for it, until you make yourself
irrelevant. The ISP based email made more sense when most end users - the
people that we serve - didn't have persistent internet connections.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:07:22AM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
That way? Make e-mail cost; have e-postage.
This is a FUSSP. It has been quite thoroughly debunked and may be
dismissed instantly, with prejudice.
---rsk
That way? Make e-mail cost; have e-postage.
Gee, I wondered how long it would take for this famous bad idea to
reappear.
I wrote a white paper ten years ago explaining why e-postage is a
bad idea, and there is no way to make it work. Nothing of any
importance has changed since then.
On 03/26/2014 12:59 PM, John Levine wrote:
That way? Make e-mail cost; have e-postage.
Gee, I wondered how long it would take for this famous bad idea to
reappear.
I wrote a white paper ten years ago explaining why e-postage is a
bad idea, and there is no way to make it work. Nothing of any
In article 911cec5c-2011-4c8d-9cc1-89df2b4cb...@heliacal.net you write:
Maybe you should focus on delivering email instead of refusing it
Since there is at least an order of magnitude more spam than real
mail, I'll just channel Randy Bush and encourage my competitors to
take your advice.
R's,
Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
the typical ISP has the technical capability to bill based on volume of
traffic already, and could easily bill per-byte for any traffic with
'e-mail properties' like being on certain ports or having certain
characteristics.
Who do I send the bill to for mail
And I also remember thinking at the time that you missed one very
important angle, and that is that the typical ISP has the technical
capability to bill based on volume of traffic already, and could easily
bill per-byte for any traffic with 'e-mail properties' like being on
certain ports or
On 03/26/2014 01:38 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
Who do I send the bill to for mail traffic from 41.0.0.0/8 ? Tony.
You don't. Their upstream(s) in South Africa would bill them for
outgoing e-mail.
Postage, at least for physical mail, is paid by the sender at the point
of ingress to the postal
Subject: Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition Date: Tue, Mar
25, 2014 at 10:45:00PM -0400 Quoting John R. Levine (jo...@iecc.com):
None of this is REQUIRED. It is forced on people by a cartel of
email providers.
It must be nice to live in world where there is so little spam
On 03/26/2014 01:42 PM, John Levine wrote:
And I also remember thinking at the time that you missed one very
important angle, and that is that the typical ISP has the technical
capability to bill based on volume of traffic already, and could easily
bill per-byte for any traffic with 'e-mail
Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
The entity with whom they already have a business relationship. Basically, if
I'm an ISP I would bill each of my customers, with whom I already have a
business relationship, for e-mail traffic. Do this as close to the edge as
possible.
Ooh, excellent, so I
Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
On 03/26/2014 01:38 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
Who do I send the bill to for mail traffic from 41.0.0.0/8 ? Tony.
You don't. Their upstream(s) in South Africa would bill them for outgoing
e-mail.
You mean Nigeria. So how do I get compensated for dealing with the
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:07:22 -0400, Lamar Owen said:
it; get enough endusers with this problem and you'll get a class-action
suit against OS vendors that allow the problem to remain a problem; you
can get rid of the bots.
You *do* realize that the OS vendor can't really do much about users
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 3/26/2014 11:45 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
So, what other ways are there to make unsolicited commercial
e-mail unprofitable?
Well, perhaps not by punishing legitimate SMTP senders who have done
nothing wrong.
Don't get me wrong -- I already *pay*
It must be nice to live in world where there is so little spam and
other mail abuse that you don't have to do any of the anti-abuse
things that real providers in the real world have to do.
What is a real provider? And what in the email specifications tells us
that the email needs and solutions
On 3/26/2014 2:16 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
to a
paid service (e.g. If you are not paying for a service, you are the
product.).
That needs to be engraved in the glass screens of every device, like the
G.O.A.L at the bottom of the rear-view mirror of some semi-truck tractors.
--
Requiescas in
On 03/26/2014 02:59 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
You *do* realize that the OS vendor can't really do much about users
who click on stuff they shouldn't, or reply to phishing emails, or
most of the other ways people *actually* get pwned these days? Hint:
Microsoft *tried* to fix this with
On 03/26/2014 03:56 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Most of the phishing e-mails I've sent don't have a valid reply-to,
from, or return-path; replying to them is effectively impossible, and
the linked/attached/inlined payload is the attack vector.
Blasted spellcheck Now that everybody has had a
On March 26, 2014 at 16:59 jo...@iecc.com (John Levine) wrote:
I wrote a white paper ten years ago explaining why e-postage is a
bad idea, and there is no way to make it work. Nothing of any
importance has changed since then.
http://www.taugh.com/epostage.pdf
It's a fine white
Would it make it more unique; if I suggested creation of a new distributed
Cryptocurrency something like 'MAILCoin' to track the memberships in the
club and handle voting out of abusive mail servers: in a distributed
manner, to ensure that no court could ever mandate that a certain IP
How about something much simpler? We already are aware of bandwidth caps at
service providers, there could just as
well be email caps. How hard would it be to ask your customer how many emails
we should expect them to send in a day?
Once again, I encourage my competitors to follow your
On Mar 26, 2014, at 7:07 AM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
On 03/25/2014 10:51 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
[snip]
I would suggest the formation of an IPv6 SMTP Server operator's club,
with a system for enrolling certain IP address source ranges as Active
mail servers, active IP addresses
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,
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
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
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Brielle Bruns br...@2mbit.com 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?
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 the
mail?
On 2014-03-25, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se 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
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
-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,
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 br...@2mbit.com wrote:
On 3/25/14, 11:56 AM, John Levine wrote:
I think this would be a
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 fergdawgs...@mykolab.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Laszlo Hanyecz las...@heliacal.net 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
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
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
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 authenticated.
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
The OP doesn't have control over the reverse DNS on the ATT 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
-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
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:07:16 -0400, Laszlo Hanyecz las...@heliacal.net
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
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
