On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 10:53:41AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
Now I know different. Just enabling ipv6 on an otherwise correctly
configured and functioning ipv4 box *will* cause damage -- it will cause
mail
that would have been delivered to not be delivered. I could be wrong, but
this strikes me as a trap that lots of people could fall into.
that's one way to look at it. another way to look at it is that poorly
chosen spam filtering criteria *will* cause damage, because conditions
in the Internet change over time.
Can't disagree with that :-)
In fact, I've never been very happy with this particular technique for
dealing with spam. Reverse dns is not required for standards-compliant
delivery of mail, and it is my personal opinion that the ietf in particular
should not be using it as an absolute filtering criteria. [Also, in my
experience it hasn't been particularly effective.]
of course, IPv6 will often get blamed for the problem because it's
something that the sender can control, whereas the spam filters are not
accountable to anyone.
That's a bit of an overstatement -- very frequently spam filters are
accountable to the people receiving the email, and in my experience, most
people would rather deal with some spam than lose important email.
Kent
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf