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@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ > IETF mailing list > IETF@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf