kent@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I think I could have been clearer with my message. It wasn't intended as
either a criticism of the ietf list management (in fact, I use precisely the
same anti-spam technique) or a request for help with configuration of my
mailservers (I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but usually I can
figure these things out on my own).
Instead, I was presenting what I thought was an interesting example of a
subtle problem that can come up in ipv6 deployment.
The mailserver in question uses a default redhat enterprise build (actually
centos). ipv6 is either enabled by default, or just has a single check box,
with no further information. The fact that ipv6 is enabled so trivially
carries the implication that just enabling ipv6 won't actually damage
anything.
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.
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.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf