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 wrote:
> > Subject: Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition Dat
On 3/30/2014 11:17 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Mar 30, 2014, at 16:40 , Måns Nilsson 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 Ni
On Mar 30, 2014, at 16:40 , Måns Nilsson 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 wrote:
>>&g
" 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 spend
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 7:40 PM, John R. Levine 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]
>>
>
> ..
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 d
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 wrote:
> > Quo
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
On March 29, 2014 at 23:26 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
>
> On Mar 29, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Barry Shein 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 sch
On 3/30/14, 10:03 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> The problem is the world is a very sloppy place and tends to function
> in spite of proofs that "bumblebees can't fly" etc. when there's a
> need.
which is fortunately, mythology based on catastrophically bad modeling
so your analogy is spot on.
> >
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 bit
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 iden
On Mar 29, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Barry Shein 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 would
>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
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
>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 accepta
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 w
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
spend
> 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 a
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:59 AM, 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 w
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 th
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
>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 p
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 advertisi
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Barry Shein 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 attached, that is, no
On Mar 28, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Barry Shein 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 then ap
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
> On Mar 29, 2014, at 3:15, Måns Nilsson 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 for me. I migh
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
> >-- i
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.
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 wh
>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
>Indeed. Having been deeply involved leading the technical side of our
>transition at my organiati
Yeah, IPv6 can be like that.
Helpfully,
John
On Mar 28, 2014, at 6:30 AM, Brandon Ross 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 p
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
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 advertising/phish
On Mar 28, 2014, at 5:27 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> On Mar 27, 2014, at 1:38 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>
On Mar 27, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
Please explain in detail where
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 hu
On Mar 27, 2014 8:01 PM, "Tim Durack" 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:
>
>
http://www.internetsociety.org/
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 27, 2014, at 1:38 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 27, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
Please explain in detail where the fraud potential comes in.
Spammer uses his botnet of zombie machines to se
On Mar 27, 2014, at 10:31 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> On March 27, 2014 at 12:14 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 27, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On March 26, 2014 at 22:25 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
Actually, a variant on that that
On Mar 27, 2014, at 1:38 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> On Mar 27, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Barry Shein 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 t
On March 27, 2014 at 12:14 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
>
> On Mar 27, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Barry Shein 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
>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
soph
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:
http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2014/03/facebooks-extremely-impressive-internal
On Thu, 27 Mar 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 27, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Barry Shein 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 email address as Fro
On Mar 27, 2014, at 11:15 AM, Barry Shein 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 particul
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 o
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.
>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 t
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 sy
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
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
On Thursday, March 27, 2014 09:48:09 AM Jim Popovitch wrote:
>
> But a significant portion of it routes through London :-)
>
> *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.
s
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> Not all of 41/8 is served by South Africa :-).
>
But a significant portion of it routes through London :-)
*cough *cough co.tz to co.za, etc., etc.
-Jim P.
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.
Not all of 41/8 is served by South Africa :-).
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
LoL
Spellcheck… Helping you correctly spell the incorrect word every time.
Owen
On Mar 26, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Lamar Owen 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 them is e
On Mar 26, 2014, at 7:07 AM, Lamar Owen 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 addresse
>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 ad
>>>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 c
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 whit
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 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 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
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 o
-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
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
Lamar Owen 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 junk
the
Lamar Owen 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 can deliver
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 prope
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
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 ne
>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 o
Lamar Owen 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 traffic fro
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,
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
i
>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.
http://ww
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
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. T
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 h
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 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:
Laszlo Hanyecz 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.finchhttp://dotat.at/
Faeroes: Variable 4, becoming southeast 5 or 6. Moderate or rough. Fair.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Jimmy Hess 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
> manner, to e
: 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 wrote:
> I would suggest the formation of an "IPv6 SMTP Server operator's club,"
>> with a sy
iverability 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 L
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 3/25/2014 10:51 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> > I would suggest the formation of an "IPv6 SMTP Server operator's club,"
>
> That comes across too much like the failed FUSSP ideas. What happens
> when spammers try to get onboard? Who is the arbitr
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:55 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> 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
>
> Surely you don't think this is a new idea.
>
Would it make it more unique; if I sugg
Maybe we could give everyone globally unique numbers and end to end
connectivity. Then maybe the users themselves can send email directly to each
other without going through this ESP cartel.
-Laszlo
On Mar 26, 2014, at 2:51 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 3/25/2014 10:25 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 25 Mar 2014 22:55:19 -0400, "John R. Levine" said:
> > 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 me
On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:51:11 -0400, Rob McEwen said:
> On 3/25/2014 10:25 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> >
> > Like I said in a previous response, if you are going to make rdns a
> > requirement, why not make SPF and DKIM mandatory as well?
>
> many ISPs ALREADY require rDNS. So making that standard of
On 3/25/2014 10:51 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> I would suggest the formation of an "IPv6 SMTP Server operator's club,"
That comes across too much like the failed FUSSP ideas. What happens
when spammers try to get onboard? Who is the arbitrator? How fast could
they react? And then you have legit sender
>I'm sure you are as vocal about outright rejecting messages for lack of
>SPF (even if softfail) and lack of DKIM as you are about requiring rDNS?
Interesting guess, but completely wrong.
>Or perhaps making TLS mandatory, outright rejecting cleartext.
Not until we have SMTP DANE.
>Seems like t
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.
Surely you don't think this is a new idea.
R's,
John
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> 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.
>
> I have repeatedly tried to get people interested in methods of makin
On 3/25/2014 10:25 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
>
> Like I said in a previous response, if you are going to make rdns a
> requirement, why not make SPF and DKIM mandatory as well?
many ISPs ALREADY require rDNS. So making that standard official for
IPv6 is isn't asking for much! It is a NATURAL progr
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 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.
Regards,
John Levine,
On 3/25/14, 8:08 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
Also, please do*not* expect folks to toss anti-spam measures out the
window just because they might move to v6.
That would be naive.
Of course not, been spending the last few months trying to adapt my own
anti-spam measures to work properly for IPv
On 3/25/14, 8:03 PM, Robert L Mathews wrote:
I don't quite see how this is anything to do with IPv6.
It does when you've got the job of trying to convince people who know
nothing about how the internet works why they should invest time in
something new.
Unless, I'm wrong in that we're tryi
On 3/25/14, 7:58 PM, TJ wrote:
In an attempt to get this thread back on topic:
* Does Google require rDNS for IPv4 mail sources?
After a quick test here, Google did not reject the mail from an IPv4
address that did not have rDNS.
If so, doing so for IPv6 shouldn't be a surprise. Your curr
On 3/25/2014 9:24 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
> Last time I checked, there is no RFC that states that using SMTP
> transport is mandatory with the originator having rDNS (ipv4/ipv6).
> It may be SUGGESTED or RECOMMENDED, but not MANDATORY or REQUIRED. It
> is an arbitrary decision made by each mail
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
