On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 05:23:12PM +0000, Tony Finch wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
In addition, the document proposes to continue using the existing
mechanism in order to support IPv6 hosts. There is little evidence of
a widespread deployment of such use,
Exim has had support for IPv6 DNS lists as described by this draft for
many years.
I fail completely to see how that is even a little bit evidence that
there is widespread deployment of IPv6 mail hosts, use of them, or
anything of the sort. I gather our point wasn't clear enough, though,
so I'll try to make it clearer.
The point is that we do not have today a large installed base of
IPv6-native networks interoperating, with large-scale spam problems
that need urgent attention, in the way that we have those problems on
IPv4-hosted mail infrastructure. I am aware that there is some IPv6
deployment, and I am aware that in those environments there are of
course mail servers. But deployment is nowhere near the scale of the
deployed v4 architecture. Therefore, we have an opportunity now,
before v6 is everywhere, to do something about the deployed code.
That isn't to say there will not need to be some
backward-compatibility efforts (which you may pronounce "kludges" if
your local policy permits). I think we said that in our original
message, however.
Best regards,
Andrew
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)shinkuro(_dot_)com
Shinkuro, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf