Can't you set your MUA to emit TEXT/PLAIN? It's just plain impolite to send only HTM ~!#!~!#$~ L. > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> > <html> > <head> > <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> > </head> > <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> > Mark Andrews wrote : > <blockquote cite="mid:200802192243.m1JMhroY097393@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" > type="cite"> > <blockquote type="cite"> > <pre wrap="">On 19 feb 2008, at 10:02, Dan Wing wrote: > </pre> > <blockquote type="cite"> > <pre wrap="">It would be interesting to write it down, and to see what > would break if the IP stack acquired and provided a fresh > v6 address to every new connection. Maybe nothing would > break, which would be great. > </pre> > </blockquote> > </blockquote> > <pre wrap=""><!----> > You also don't want to do it as you would also need massive churn in > the DNS. > </pre> > </blockquote> > The proposal is, more precisely, a new fresh v6 address for each > OUTGOING connection.<br> There are plenty of services that want working reverse lookups before they will let you in. So yes, OUTGOING needs to be registered in the DNS as much as INCOMING. In addition that registration has to propogate to all the authoritative servers for the relevent zones. > (A new address per incoming connection wouldn't make sense, right?)<br> > Then, there is no need to concern the DNS with these new addresses:<br> > - Addresses in the DNS would remain stable.<br> > - Hosts would simultaneously have their advertised address(es), > registered in the DNS, and transient addresses for outgoing connections.<br> > <br> > This approach, say "extended privacy with fresh address per > connection", has been introduced as a potential alternative to v6 to > v6 NATs.<br> > The goal is to have : (1) privacy and security similar to that of > these NATs; (2) preservation of E2E significance of addresses and port > numbers.<br> > <br> > If there is interest in at least looking at it, more work would clearly > be needed.<br> > In particular, some way to improve the Duplicate Address Discovery > would have to be devised.<br> > IMHO, preserving E2E significance has numerous advantages, worth > extending the scope of studied solutions.<br> > <br> > RD<br> > <br> > </body> > </html> -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf