On 12/14/10 8:35 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.
No, a gateway will talk to a v4 network for the SMTP and a v6 network
for the POP and IMAP.
Believe it or not, there already is v6 SMTP.
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.
Maybe I'm a mean old person, but I have no interest at all in making
it easier for people who don't know what they're doing to set up a
mail server.
The way v4 SMTP works today has been such a success it should be
preserved in amber, where bulk email senders (who know what they are
doing) happily mix good and bad sources.
v6 is likely the best thing that could happen to SMTP. The sheer size
of this space requires server authentication. This welcome change will
identify servers of good sources, rather than guessing which address is
static and authorized by their provider.
Authenticated domains offer a basis for reputation that can be applied
uniformly against either v4 or v6 sources.
Right, so we agree that v6 mail is useless.
Change that to v4 and then we agree. :^)
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg