Re: [Asrg] What are the IPs that sends mail for a domain?

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Wed, 17 June 2009 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3A443A6E2E for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VoF2eeQlOQha for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk (lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7E043A69CE for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.134.43]:61239) by lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KLDPXA-0003QB-8M for asrg@irtf.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:46:22 +0100
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:45:30 +0100
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <C60F227093DFC64BE72728DF@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20090617085106.2213.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
References: <20090617085106.2213.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01XwPKr8hkOBSgcB4RyynSeD0ixXvrCcIp1G4=; token_authority=support@its.sussex.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Sussex: true
X-Sussex-transport: remote_smtp
Subject: Re: [Asrg] What are the IPs that sends mail for a domain?
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:45:32 -0000

--On 17 June 2009 08:51:06 +0000 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

>> If we don't specify some RFC/BCP to specify how SMTP over IPv6 should be
>> negotiated, then no one will follow.
>
> The IETF is amazingly resistant to making v6 SMTP different from v4 SMTP
> in any way.
>
> In particular, I suggested that they not have a rule for fallback to
> AAAA in the absence of MX.  The rationale is straightforward: most
> hosts with AAAA (and indeed A) records are not mail servers, people
> need to add new DNS records anyway for v6 so the incremental effort to
> install MX records is quite small, and it'll make mail more reliable
> by making it easier to tell when a domain doesn't receive mail.  They
> all said too late, there are already a handful of v6 mail hosts.
> Sigh.

But, do they have MX records? If yes, there's not a problem. Do you receive 
any email from them? If no, there's not a problem.

If a good chunk of the world implemented the rule that you've suggested 
(perhaps "*.ac.uk" or  "*.gov" domains, or just gmail), then we'd be in a 
good place. It might not be too late for some leadership initiative to 
actually make a difference outside the IETF.



>
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/