IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Asrg] How will we manage IPv6 spam?

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sun, 19 August 2012 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 32BEA21F859C for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Vg3PlT-v1jNq for <asrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 629F621F859B for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7JJtFbd027403 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1345406119; bh=xQ4mZQKjkxfRaTd8HjGmn0/P2zv1iFAJLFSdn+Fnebc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=kPC2SM4BHeF8957HXW8MHyWDupmz13MixXJiHc6zjoU11dtnBPULqFNOfatq6LDJQ yZ1+ZBAqjQm0yAeHs1EkRj/liPPJY9//jreZPbg+jk1nQyxt/x4YliJCCDskPup3YI fciQ/Swl+YZh/CWLxcGB2HxwIvaV4TQ1G++bUgu0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1345406119; i=@resistor.net; bh=xQ4mZQKjkxfRaTd8HjGmn0/P2zv1iFAJLFSdn+Fnebc=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=cexNS25mLxUU1EvaRjrVknWFFT8l+3brt14+QPJatKorqxYYHoahzo7uyQaC1Uu8J +HXI2HHbTSIj3lm7oOhqexnezskYgtHc+7Ovdw7Qu7a2qaQ5meyQ3vDlgPbN07vxOk 9fSI8XUnyUUL+PevamCXXS7xZyOg5ikwSPbbpuWo=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120819124546.09822d20@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:52:03 -0700
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1208180653530.12975@nber6>
References: <20120818014025.41244.qmail@joyce.lan> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1208180653530.12975@nber6>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [Asrg] How will we manage IPv6 spam?
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: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 19:55:21 -0000

At 03:59 18-08-2012, Daniel Feenberg wrote:
>It is one thing to say that support for IPv6 is the morally correct
>action, and another to point out a benefit to the receiver of
>accepting IPv6 mail, when all of the same mail is available over

There isn't any morally correct action.

>IPv4. Will it be possible for the IETF to convince major legitimate
>senders to drop support for IPv4 mail? Would anyone here drop support

No.

>of IPv4 email for their employer or customer as a matter of
>principle?

No.

The subject line is about how a problem can be tackled.  Doing 
nothing is one of the options.

Regards,
-sm

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email