On 8 jul 2008, at 20.41, Keith Moore wrote:
1) I do understand where the current last 64 bits are EUId comes
from.
2) Someone (I think it was Keith Moore) said that if the scheme
doesn't work for servers AND hosts (i.e no difference) it's a bad
scheme. I sort of agree with that, but the
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On 8 jul 2008, at 20.41, Keith Moore wrote:
[..]
I disagree that it doesn't work for servers. (Or it would be better
to say that I'd like to know why you think it doesn't work for servers.)
People have personal opinions, one likes this, the other likes that,
(Apologies for the late reply)
On 4 jul 2008, at 15.10, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, 04 July, 2008 10:46 +0200 Kurt Erik Lindqvist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3 jul 2008, at 15.57, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 10:47:53PM -0700, 'kent' wrote:
[..]
However, this
1) I do understand where the current last 64 bits are EUId comes from.
2) Someone (I think it was Keith Moore) said that if the scheme doesn't
work for servers AND hosts (i.e no difference) it's a bad scheme. I sort
of agree with that, but the reason it doesn't work for servers is simply
lack
surely we in the IETF should be able to do better than to have our mail
servers filter incoming mail based on completely irrelevant criteria
like whether a PTR lookup succeeds!
Spam filtering is sort of like chemotherapy, the difference between
the good and the bad is pretty small, and the
Ned Freed wrote:
Spam filtering is sort of like chemotherapy, the difference between
the good and the bad is pretty small, and the trick is to find
measures that will kill the disease without killing the patient. It's
entirely a matter of statistics, not fundamental design.
And sort of
On 3 jul 2008, at 15:57, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Which (autoconfig) you should either not be using on servers, or you
should be configuring your software properly to select the correct
outbound address.
Is it the IETF's job to tell people how to run their networks?
In my opinion, stateless
In your previous mail you wrote:
Specifically, the problem Dave encountered earlier was that the ietf mail
server was rejecting mail without reverse dns, and since the ietf mail
server and the mipassoc.org/dkim.org/bbiw.net mail servers all had ip6
addresses, and ip6 is used
= according to Glen via RT (RT is a well known bug ticket system):
This check is in place at the direction of the IETF community, and has
been discussed and debated at length.
I don't recall the Last Call on that question, nor even the I-D.
seems like this calls into question the
At 09:28 07-07-2008, Francis Dupont wrote:
= according to Glen via RT (RT is a well known bug ticket system):
This check is in place at the direction of the IETF community, and has
been discussed and debated at length.
I don't recall seeing any community debate before this check was
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
(That draft would basically be a BCP, cc'd to v6ops where this belongs)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I could have been clearer with my message.[..]
Instead, I was presenting what I thought was an interesting example of a
subtle problem that can come up in ipv6 deployment.
I think it is
On 3 jul 2008, at 15.57, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 10:47:53PM -0700, 'kent' wrote:
[..]
However, this last address, 2001:470:1:76:2c0:9fff:fe3e:4009, is not
explicitly configured on the sending server; instead, it is being
implicitly
configured through ip6 autoconf
On 3 jul 2008, at 15.57, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 10:47:53PM -0700, 'kent' wrote:
[..]
However, this last address, 2001:470:1:76:2c0:9fff:fe3e:4009, is not
explicitly configured on the sending server; instead, it is being
implicitly
configured through ip6 autoconf
--On Friday, 04 July, 2008 10:46 +0200 Kurt Erik Lindqvist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3 jul 2008, at 15.57, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 10:47:53PM -0700, 'kent' wrote:
[..]
However, this last address,
2001:470:1:76:2c0:9fff:fe3e:4009, is not explicitly
configured on
)
(Was: problem dealing w/ ietf.org mail servers)
As RFC's can be updated as much as we want and they definitely are not
final.
Greets,
Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
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
Hi Rich
I'll cc this to the ietf list, as you suggested.
I've found the problem. It may or may not be something that ietf want's to
do something about -- I would think they would, since it seems to have global
significance. But I can fix it from this end.
Specifically, the problem
surely we in the IETF should be able to do better than to have our mail
servers filter incoming mail based on completely irrelevant criteria
like whether a PTR lookup succeeds!
how can we expect the rest of the network to be sane if we can't even
use reasonable criteria for our spam filtering
you are not the first to report this problem.
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 10:47:53PM -0700, 'kent' wrote:
Hi Rich
I'll cc this to the ietf list, as you suggested.
I've found the problem. It may or may not be something that ietf want's to
do something about -- I would think they would,
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 10:47:53PM -0700, 'kent' wrote:
[..]
However, this last address, 2001:470:1:76:2c0:9fff:fe3e:4009, is not
explicitly configured on the sending server; instead, it is being implicitly
configured through ip6 autoconf stuff:
Which (autoconfig) you should either not be
surely we in the IETF should be able to do better than to have our mail
servers filter incoming mail based on completely irrelevant criteria
like whether a PTR lookup succeeds!
Spam filtering is sort of like chemotherapy, the difference between
the good and the bad is pretty small, and the
Bill Manning wrote:
you are not the first to report this problem.
1. From what I can tell, the only way to know about the reporting form is to
have seen it on the Announce list. I certainly cannot see anything from the
ietf.org page that is relevant. I think the page needs some sort of
Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 10:47:53PM -0700, 'kent' wrote:
[..]
However, this last address, 2001:470:1:76:2c0:9fff:fe3e:4009, is not
explicitly configured on the sending server; instead, it is being
implicitly
configured through ip6 autoconf stuff:
Which (autoconfig) you
John Levine wrote:
surely we in the IETF should be able to do better than to have our mail
servers filter incoming mail based on completely irrelevant criteria
like whether a PTR lookup succeeds!
Spam filtering is sort of like chemotherapy, the difference between
the good
that's hardly a justification for stupidity.
I entirely agree. Where we evidently don't agree is about what's stupid.
R's,
John
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Which (autoconfig) you should either not be using on
servers, or you
should be configuring your software properly to select the correct
outbound address.
that's a bizarre statement. the distinction between a client
and a server is an artificial one. either autoconfig is
useful
John Levine wrote:
that's hardly a justification for stupidity.
I entirely agree. Where we evidently don't agree is about what's stupid.
in this case, what's stupid is filtering mail based on arbitrary and
largely undocumented criteria, with little regard for the
consequences.for
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 10:47:53PM -0700, 'kent' wrote:
[..]
However, this last address, 2001:470:1:76:2c0:9fff:fe3e:4009, is not
explicitly configured on the sending server; instead, it is being impli=
citly
configured through ip6 autoconf stuff:
Which (autoconfig) you should either
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 07:57:58AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
A mobile machine can register its current addresses in the
DNS regardless much more easily than it can register its
reverse PTR records.
er... both are registering things in the DNS. manipulation
Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: problem dealing w/ ietf.org mail servers
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 07:57:58AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
A mobile machine can register its current addresses in the
DNS
PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: problem dealing w/ ietf.org mail servers
On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 07:57:58AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
A mobile machine can register its current addresses in the
DNS regardless much more easily than it can
Hi Rich
I'll cc this to the ietf list, as you suggested.
I've found the problem. It may or may not be something that ietf want's to
do something about -- I would think they would, since it seems to have global
significance. But I can fix it from this end.
Specifically, the problem Dave
34 matches
Mail list logo
