were you folks pursuing this on ietf-smtp, as requested, you might have noticed
that the problems with changing the model have been explored thoroughly.
d/
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I don't think this is a major issue, for two reasons: By the time that
IPv6 mail becomes common, mail clients (and MTAs) will have been
updated numerous times to deal with the security issue de jour.
Secondly, even if a mail client or MTA were to erroneously implement
this behavior, this causes no particular harm to the world at large,
except bad error behavior for that particular MTA or MUA.
Henning
On Mar 31, 2008, at 7:58 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, John Levine wrote:
Getting rid of the AAAA fallback flips the default to be in line with
reality -- most hosts don't want to receive mail directly, so if
you're one of the minority that actually does, you affirmatively
publish an MX to say so.
I agree that this is the right thing to do in an ideal world.
However there's a lot of old running code out there that implements
the
AAAA fallback. Is IPv6 still enough of a toy that the stability of its
specifications doesn't matter?
Tony (in two minds).
--
f.anthony.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
ROCKALL MALIN: SOUTHERLY VEERING WESTERLY, 4 IN MALIN AT FIRST,
OTHERWISE 7 TO
SEVERE GALE 9. ROUGH BECOMING VERY ROUGH OR HIGH. RAIN OR SHOWERS.
MODERATE OR
GOOD, OCCASIONALLY POOR.
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf