On 5/11/17, 1:28 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Paul Vixie" <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of p...@redbarn.org> wrote:
> > >John Levine wrote: >>>>> In my experience, without reverse DNS it is essentially impossible >>>>>to have >>>>> mail delivered to the internet at large. >>>> Yes. >>> since this isn't an ideal or intended state of affairs, let's consider >>> the size and shape of the box, not just what's in there. >> >> What would be the operational advantage of accepting mail from IPv6 >>hosts >> too lame to set up rDNS? > >we will never know, because every v6 end system will have a ptr, either >naturally, or machine-generated for it, because v6 providers will not >want their rank-and-file v6 endsystems to be excluded from important >activities such as transmitting e-mail. If ³v6 provider² includes ³residential ISP² (the topic and audience for this draft), then the inability to transmit email is by design. That is: ISPs commonly prevent residential users from sending email (by default). They say this in their Terms of Service, they block port 25, and they don¹t publish PTRs. This is consistent with recommendations by M3AAWG[1] and BITAG[2], for instance. [1] https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/document/MAAWG_Port25rec0511.pdf [2] https://www.bitag.org/documents/Port-Blocking.pdf I¹m pretty sure this is a consensus position. > >the operational advantage of not having ptr's for rank and file end >systems is much easier to explain, except to v6 endsystem providers. People who run mail servers generally understand these limitations. The BITAG paper does recommend clear disclosure and methods to opt-out. Makes sense to me: I want a human decided they want their system to send mail, not a bot. Lee _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
