On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 03:54:25PM -0700, Jem Berkes wrote:
> Sure, we could support them but if they are the only one (and without
> public documentation on how to use) then aren't we making guesses from a
> rare case? I haven't found any public discussion on IPv6 DNSBL
> conventions.
Apart from Exim, I don't think there are any client implementationas,
and there's no huge cry for it either. But it is worth bearing in mind,
because one day they will be used by someone, and it's worth bearing in
mind that RBL's are IP-version specific.
> For example, what is the standard for how to place the IPv6 string under
> the DNSBL zone? Are we still using decimal octets? Can you point me
> towards some examples?
The "standard" we use is to use reverse-nibbles.v6.rbl-name. So;
2001:770:18:2::90 in rbl-plus.hea.net. would look like;
0.9.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.8.1.0.0.0.7.7.0.1.0.0.2.v6.rbl-plus.hea.net.
IN AAAA ::1
Using reverse-nibbles has a pretty clear consensus, every IPv6 rbl so
far has used nibbles. The "v6" prefix was invented, but it avoids the
permanent collision with *.2.rbl-name which could equally map to
2.0.0.0/8 in IPv4.
Using quad-A's instead of A records is also a bit iffy, there is no
clear consensus on this just yet. I guess we'll have to wait for more
IPv6 spam (I'm only just into double-digits of IPv6 spam senders ever).
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
