On 02/16, Charles Gregory wrote:
You got it. Exactly. And that's why I gave up on MTX. Because the author
was insisting that exactly that should happen.
I have never recommended that the majority of people penalize email just
because it doesn't get an MTX Pass, before wide spread adoption.
dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
In my initial posts I did focus too much on my hope that MTX will
eventually be sufficiently widely adopted that such mail *can* safely be
penalized. I also apologized for that communication failure on my part.
I'm still waiting for RDNS to be widely
On 02/14, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
1: The participation record is optional, so you only use it if you want
everything else to be rejected.
On 14.02.10 14:48, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
Yeah. I'm thinking of using the 4th octet to indicate participation, and
the third octet to indicate
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
1: The participation record is optional, so you only use it if you want
everything else to be rejected.
This is why I would support mtamark... It permits the sysadmin to
determine the default behaviour for his IP range, rather than defining a
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
1: The participation record is optional, so you only use it if you want
everything else to be rejected.
On 15.02.10 09:04, Charles Gregory wrote:
This is why I would support mtamark... It permits the sysadmin to
determine the default behaviour
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
well, the ipv6 addresses are (were?) expected to be allocated by /48
blocks, so we could need check on this level too, imho.
We got an IPv6 range allocated late last year, it is a /48 block.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
On 2010-02-15 15:04, Charles Gregory wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
1: The participation record is optional, so you only use it if you
want everything else to be rejected.
This is why I would support mtamark... It permits the sysadmin to
determine the default behaviour
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
1: The participation record is optional, so you only use it if you
want everything else to be rejected.
This is why I would support mtamark... It permits the sysadmin to
determine the default behaviour for his IP range, rather than defining a
Very simple, via HTTP and a small perl script:
http://www.chaosreigns.com/mtx/#blacklist
It's currently empty.
On 02/14, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
On 02/14, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
* I think there should be a way to tell the world wether you are using
the scheme for a domain (not host)
On 2010-02-14 20:06, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
I remembered why (else) I didn't want to do that. It effectively says
Everything else should be rejected. Which will discourage some people
from using it. So you would at least need to provide a way to say Yes,
I'm participating, but
On 02/14, Jonas Eckerman wrote:
1: The participation record is optional, so you only use it if you want
everything else to be rejected.
Yeah. I'm thinking of using the 4th octet to indicate participation, and
the third octet to indicate delegation.
Check for the MTX record first, and if it
11 matches
Mail list logo
