On 12/14/10 5:58 PM, John Levine wrote:
In your view, v6 must tunnel to v4 to exchange email. This suggests a
need for translation services to deal with those not prepared for v6. :^)
No tunnels, gateway. The MTA speaks v6 to the local SUBMIT and POP
users, and v4 to its SMTP peers.
Yes of course. But a gateway will likely bridge between v6 and v4
through a tunnel, which could be offered as a service.
How would one vet email sources over v6 from other geographic regions?
Personally, I wouldn't even try.
I'm surprised, because you're not a fuddy duddy. v6 makes it easier for
SOHO configurations to obtain unpolluted static addresses. v6 also
introduces an era demanding domain authentication, since block lists
based upon v6 addresses will never be practical. When v6 systems
authenticate their domain, they'll provide better information than that
offered from typical v4 sources, which might only expose an IP address.
Authenticated domains offer a basis for reputation that can be applied
uniformly against either v4 or v6 sources. Authenticated domain
information also reveals registrar and name server information, in
addition to that gleaned from the IP address itself. v6 is a Good Thing
(tm), but you'll need to trade in your hammer for a wrench.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg