> > Simply pretending a shark doesn't exist offers very little in shark > > protection. While I understand this school of thought I don't believe > > it will solve the problem or remove the need. > > We're still in the early phases of IPv6. If sufficient ISPs drop PTR > for dynamic IPv6 addresses, email providers and others who base some > sort of "reputation" on IPv4 PTRs today will simply have to adapt.
Steinar, I think this is bigger than anti-spam logic. Simply put: Customers pay for the Internet. If customers want to "tag" an IPv6 block as their own as they do with IPv4, why can't they? Please don't answer me as if I am a peer, answer as if I am a paying customer asking "why not?" Simply deciding a request is silly (even with peer support) won't make it go away, it will only make your _problem_ become a source of _revenue_for_your_competitor_ and eventually putting you behind what _everyone_else_is_already_doing_. Just my $.02 Regards, John > > Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no > -- THESE ARE THE DROIDS TO WHOM I REFER: This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments. _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
