IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Asrg] DNSBL and IPv6

Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> Sat, 20 October 2012 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <schaefer@closedmail.com>
X-Original-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA3E221F8470 for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 07:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hKMqoDDoodpi for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 07:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vms173003pub.verizon.net (vms173003pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 379CA21F846B for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 07:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from torch.brasslantern.com ([unknown] [98.234.255.59]) by vms173003.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0MC700MGJ41T1U90@vms173003.mailsrvcs.net> for asrg@irtf.org; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 09:25:06 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from torch.brasslantern.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by torch.brasslantern.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id q9KEP45T005007 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 07:25:05 -0700
Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by torch.brasslantern.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id q9KEP4tX005006 for asrg@irtf.org; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 07:25:04 -0700
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Message-id: <121020072504.ZM5005@torch.brasslantern.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 07:25:04 -0700
In-reply-to: <20121020073031.GA3248@hjp.at>
Comments: In reply to "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-asrg@hjp.at> "Re: [Asrg] DNSBL and IPv6" (Oct 20, 9:30am)
References: <20121019224131.28382.qmail@joyce.lan> <5081EF6F.9030808@hireahit.com> <5C0A004C-1BAD-4103-85C2-B94B718F0367@blighty.com> <20121020073031.GA3248@hjp.at>
X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005)
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: [Asrg] DNSBL and IPv6
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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/options/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: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 14:25:41 -0000

On Oct 20,  9:30am, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
}
} Is there a reason why a legitimate MTA (talking to MXs, not submission
} servers) would want to hop around in its net?

A legitimate MTA could still be running in a dynamically-assigned space.
In this case it might hop all over the space but probably wouldn't hop
very frequently.

A single MTA host might have multiple NICs each with its own IP, and not
always choose the same interface for the same MX on retry.  Here it might
hop quite a lot, but among a limited number of choices.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email