On 12/1/2010 11:47 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 12/1/2010 12:05 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Where did you hear that? I can't imagine that
IPv6 is any less (or any more) anonymous than IPv4.
One HUGE problem is that IPv6 will be a spammer's dream and a DNSBL's
nightmare. A spammers (and blackhat E
On 12/1/2010 10:29 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 12/1/2010 12:55 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
I don't see any nightmare.
When DNSBL resources are order of magnitudes higher... when the largest
data files for DNSBLs go from 100MB to probably Terabytes... and then
trying to transfer that via rsync... an
On 2010/12/01 12:55 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Actually, since the smallest allocation unit is a /64, you could switch
IP addresses once per nanosecond and not run out for almost 585 years.
If you have a /48, you could last for about 38 million years.
So at a minimium, an IPv6 DNSBL will have to
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:29:28 -0500
Rob McEwen wrote:
> When DNSBL resources are order of magnitudes higher... when the
> largest data files for DNSBLs go from 100MB to probably Terabytes...
> and then trying to transfer that via rsync... and getting all the
> mirrors to handle loading that much d
On 12/1/2010 12:55 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> I don't see any nightmare.
When DNSBL resources are order of magnitudes higher... when the largest
data files for DNSBLs go from 100MB to probably Terabytes... and then
trying to transfer that via rsync... and getting all the mirrors to
handle loading
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 12:47:16 -0500
Rob McEwen wrote:
> One HUGE problem is that IPv6 will be a spammer's dream and a DNSBL's
> nightmare. A spammers (and blackhat ESPs) would potentially send out
> each spam from a different IP and then not use each IP again for
> YEARS!
Actually, since the smal
On 12/1/2010 12:05 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> Where did you hear that? I can't imagine that
> IPv6 is any less (or any more) anonymous than IPv4.
One HUGE problem is that IPv6 will be a spammer's dream and a DNSBL's
nightmare. A spammers (and blackhat ESPs) would potentially send out
each spam f
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:55:17 +
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Besides, I seem to remember hearing that IPV6 is never anonymous
Where did you hear that? I can't imagine that
IPv6 is any less (or any more) anonymous than IPv4.
> OT comment 1: if IPV6 is indeed never anonymous, where does *that*
>
