Re: problem dealing w/ ietf.org mail servers

kent@songbird.com Fri, 04 July 2008 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB153A68D8; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9359E3A69C6 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.025, 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 nCE2fQXwfORX for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh2.songbird.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:20e:2eff:fe83:96b3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08B733A6881 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sbh2.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m64GhfaI014834; Fri, 4 Jul 2008 09:43:41 -0700
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:43:41 -0700
From: kent@songbird.com
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Subject: Re: problem dealing w/ ietf.org mail servers
Message-ID: <20080704164341.GB32192@lark.songbird.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <013301c8dca5$22ca0a80$685e1f80$@us> <20080703054752.GM6185@lark.songbird.com> <20080703134655.GA17472@boreas.isi.edu> <486CDD05.10802@bbiw.net> <20080704062213.GA32192@lark.songbird.com> <486E3975.30209@network-heretics.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <486E3975.30209@network-heretics.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 10:53:41AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> >Now I know different.  Just enabling ipv6 on an otherwise correctly
> >configured and functioning ipv4 box *will* cause damage -- it will cause 
> >mail
> >that would have been delivered to not be delivered.  I could be wrong, but
> >this strikes me as a trap that lots of people could fall into. 
> 
> that's one way to look at it.  another way to look at it is that poorly 
> chosen spam filtering criteria *will* cause damage, because conditions 
> in the Internet change over time.

Can't disagree with that :-) 

In fact, I've never been very happy with this particular technique for
dealing with spam.  Reverse dns is not required for standards-compliant
delivery of mail, and it is my personal opinion that the ietf in particular
should not be using it as an absolute filtering criteria.  [Also, in my 
experience it hasn't been particularly effective.]

> of course, IPv6 will often get blamed for the problem because it's 
> something that the sender can control, whereas the spam filters are not 
> accountable to anyone.

That's a bit of an overstatement -- very frequently spam filters are
accountable to the people receiving the email, and in my experience, most 
people would rather deal with some spam than lose important email.

Kent
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf