> -Original Message-
> From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John R Levine
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 1:41 PM
> To: Paul Vixie
> Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-03.txt
>
> >> You might w
>>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 =B3v6 provider=B2 includes =B3resi
On 5/11/17, 1:28 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Paul Vixie"
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 co
You might want to talk to large providers that do v6 now. With only one
exception I can think of, they have no plans to do synthesized v6 rDNS,
and they routinely block port 25 from all their consumer networks.
i'd like to meet your friends. but i'd also like them write an rfc about it.
You'v
John R Levine wrote:
> You might want to talk to large providers that do v6 now. With only one
> exception I can think of, they have no plans to do synthesized v6 rDNS,
> and they routinely block port 25 from all their consumer networks.
i'd like to meet your friends. but i'd also like them wri
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
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
"John Levine" writes:
> What would be the operational advantage of accepting mail from IPv6 hosts
> too lame to set up rDNS?
The answer is pretty much the same as the answer to the question:
"What would be the operational advantage of accepting mail?"
Bjørn
__
In article <5908daf9.90...@redbarn.org> you write:
>> behalf of pch-dnso...@u-1.phicoh.com> 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,
In your letter dated Tue, 02 May 2017 15:03:15 -0400 you wrote:
>I agree that people reject mail if there=B9s no PTR; I think this is used in
>fighting spam, based on an inference that if there=B9s no PTR, you=B9re a s=
>pam
>bot rather than a legitimate mail server.
>The first case listed in 4. C
On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 11:10:01 AM GMT Lee Howard wrote:
> On 5/2/17, 3:16 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Paul Vixie"
> >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.
> >
> >http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110607_two_s
On 5/2/17, 3:16 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Paul Vixie"
wrote:
>
>
>Lee Howard wrote:
>>
>> On 3/16/17, 7:02 AM, "Philip Homburg" > behalf of pch-dnso...@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In my experience, without reverse DNS it is essentially impossible to
>>>have
>>> mail delivered to the internet
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 03:03:15PM -0400, Lee Howard wrote:
> >Do you have a reference for the following statement
> >Serving ads: "This host is probably in town.province." An ISP that does
> >not
> >provide PTR records might affect somebody else's geolocation.
>
> No. Given the privacy considera
Lee Howard wrote:
>
> On 3/16/17, 7:02 AM, "Philip Homburg" behalf of pch-dnso...@u-1.phicoh.com> 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
On 3/16/17, 7:02 AM, "Philip Homburg" wrote:
>>1. I do not think there is consensus that having PTRs is or is not a best
>>practice, so emphasizing the lack of consensus lets us move on to what an
>>ISP can do, if they care to do anything.
>>The first paragraph has been overhauled to say "While
>1. I do not think there is consensus that having PTRs is or is not a best
>practice, so emphasizing the lack of consensus lets us move on to what an
>ISP can do, if they care to do anything.
>The first paragraph has been overhauled to say "While the need for a PTR
>record and for it to match
> i
This was posted a couple of weeks ago, but got wedged in systems.
Diff is at
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns-03
I think this version is responsive to all of the comments from the
previous WGLC.
Some specific changes:
1. I do not think there is consensus that havin
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF.
Title : Reverse DNS in IPv6 for Internet Service Providers
Author : Lee Howard
Filename: d
18 matches
Mail list logo
