According to Jeffrey Walton <noloader@xxxxxxxxx>: >In the past, I watched the IP range of a blacklist grow larger and >larger as AT&T would not kick a [known] spammer off their network. The >range got so large it DoS'd the Social Security Administration. This >was back in 2002 or 2003, before That was over 20 years ago. DNSBLs are considerably more sophisticated now. >> Really that's not an IPv4-vs-IPv6 question. > >Yeah, I often wonder about conflating spam control with IPv4/IPv6 >addressing. I always found them to be two separate issues. I find that well chosen DNSBLS identify about 70% of attempted deliveries to my system so I can send them into the spam trap, with extremely low error rates. I talk to people at a lot of mail systems and I can assure you that every one of them uses DNSBLs in their spam management. This is of course all entirely irrelevant to the question that provoked this endless thread, which is about the IETF sending mail over IPv6, not receiving it. I'm relieved to see we agree that's resolved. R's, John -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@xxxxxxxxx, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
