Re: [v6ops] Problem with delivering of mail

I dropped off a few iETF lists last week due - I was told by the ietf-action people - to an IPv6-specific problem on the list server.   We have dual-stack MXs and this is the first significant mail problem we've experienced due to IPv6 (that we know about at least :)

However, it's good that the IETF lists do run IPv6; I'd rather have the occasional minor inconvenience than the IETF turning IPv6 off.

Tim

On 23 Apr 2011, at 20:10, Roger Jørgensen wrote:

> seems like there was something up with the mail for a while...
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Mail Delivery System <MAILER-DAEMON@ietfc.amsl.com>
> Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 7:22 PM
> Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
> To: rogerj@gmail.com
> 
> 
> This is the mail system at host ietfc.amsl.com.
> 
> I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
> be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
> 
> For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
> 
> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
> delete your own text from the attached returned message.
> 
>                   The mail system
> 
> <v6ops@ietfc.amsl.com>: mail forwarding loop for v6ops@ietfc.amsl.com
> 
> Final-Recipient: rfc822; v6ops@ietfc.amsl.com
> Original-Recipient: rfc822;v6ops@ietf.org
> Action: failed
> Status: 5.4.6
> Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; mail forwarding loop for v6ops@ietfc.amsl.com
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Roger Jørgensen" <rogerj@gmail.com>
> To: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:04:37 +0200
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Dmitry Anipko
> <Dmitry.Anipko@microsoft.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> 
>>>> remove that particular option from the table when a user, operator or vendor is considering what should be deployed/implemented...
>> 
>> I agree that once majority of customers indeed have a choice whether to subscribe to their ISP IPV6 offering, 6to4 will no longer be needed. But are we there yet?
> 
> 
> The interesting thing about this entire 6to4 discussing is that there
> is pretty much two sides
> 
> 
> * Those that wish 6to4 gone because it cause more problem than it
> solve, they also consider it too costly to fix considering other
> options.
> 
> 
> * Then there is the "other" side that is interesting... that is MS and
> Apple which want to give their customer IPv6 which is great, I can't
> praise those companies enough for their effort on IPv6. Espesial
> Microsoft and their efford over the last 10+ years.
> 
> 
> 
> But, isn't it time to move on, beyond IPv6 access for any cost and to
> a place where we say either Good IPv6 access or none?
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Roger Jorgensen           |
> rogerj@gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
> http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger@jorgensen.no
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Roger Jorgensen           |
> rogerj@gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
> http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger@jorgensen.no
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

Re: [v6ops] Problem with delivering of mail - Fwd: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender