IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Asrg] Re: 3. Requirements - IPv6 support

Andrew Akehurst <A.D.Akehurst-99@student.lboro.ac.uk> Mon, 14 July 2003 15:34 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29081 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:34:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19c5Ke-0004na-Et for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:33:42 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6EFXeLK018442 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:33:40 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19c5Ke-0004nN-Bu for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:33:40 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29042; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:33:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19c5Kd-0001gv-00; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:33:39 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19c5Kc-0001gs-00; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:33:38 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19c5K0-0004jd-P3; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:33:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19c5Jb-0004jH-5B for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:32:35 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA28892 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:32:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19c5Ja-0001ew-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:32:34 -0400
Received: from bill.lut.ac.uk ([158.125.1.193]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19c5JX-0001ej-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 11:32:32 -0400
Received: from [158.125.1.117] (helo=studentpop1.lboro.ac.uk ident=root) by bill.lut.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19c5JT-0002OC-VO; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:32:27 +0100
Received: from [158.125.1.123] (helo=bod.lut.ac.uk) by studentpop1.lboro.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 19c5JT-0006pJ-00; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:32:27 +0100
Received: from apache by bod.lut.ac.uk with local (Exim 4.12) id 19c5JT-000694-00; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:32:27 +0100
To: "C. Wegrzyn" <wegrzyn@garbagedump.com>
Message-ID: <1058196747.3f12cd0bde841@student-webmail.lboro.ac.uk>
From: Andrew Akehurst <A.D.Akehurst-99@student.lboro.ac.uk>
Cc: asrg@ietf.org
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030713204531.00b394b0@std5.imagineis.com> <3F1203EB.8050109@garbagedump.com>
In-Reply-To: <3F1203EB.8050109@garbagedump.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.8
X-Originating-IP: 194.196.110.14
X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *19c5JT-0002OC-VO*NncBbx5Zc9o*
X-Lboro-Filtered: bill.lut.ac.uk, Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:32:28 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: [Asrg] Re: 3. Requirements - IPv6 support
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:32:27 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Quoting "C. Wegrzyn" <wegrzyn@garbagedump.com>:

> I think we should include it but not as an exclusive requirement unless
> there is no other solution.

Why not just use the generic term "IP address" in any discussions and leave it 
to implementation detail?

If a proposed anti-spam scheme specifically relies upon some feature of IPv6 
which does not exist in IPv4 then the issue becomes relevant. But in general if 
you're using an IP address in a way which works equally well in either protocol 
version then why would it matter?

Many people here worry that requiring a new SMTP protocol would unnecessarily 
delay implementation of anti-spam solutions. Not that it's a bad idea in the 
long-term, but we also need short and medium-term techniques too. Surely 
requiring IPv6, which is not yet widely used, would have a similar delaying 
effect?

Andrew

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email