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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf