Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix)
 with ESMTP id 96101E0699 for <v6ops@ietfc.amsl.com>;
 Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com
 [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VixTtXyYdLFU for
 <v6ops@ietfc.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk
 [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id
 3BFB2E0674 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.ecs.soton.ac.uk [127.0.0.1])
 by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3OG6HOl003907 for
 <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 17:06:17 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk p3OG6HOl003907
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=200903;
 t=1303661178; bh=4i6zzmToJ7SvGak1hElkoWFOBTg=;
 h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To;
 b=Z2u1bZYy6NCJoaDyHE86nr9xqcoIvZLCsJEB2Ny7ZkJpdsOQy5acqqsPj+TjyuOdf
 5axsrA9OaYIlmJWKeRCIq+btpz3L5PTA5BzmNTRa1Q7rF+hf5M5d3XTLio/Ll2V2ae
 HiGOrD9ToaXsbeUitZTKqZdQIDs7coK1udd2BTXE=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk
 [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk
 [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP id
 n3NH6H0035631597YX ret-id none; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 17:06:17 +0100
Received: from [192.168.1.14] (host213-123-213-183.in-addr.btopenworld.com
 [213.123.213.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk
 (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3OG4tmf017927 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3
 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <v6ops@ietf.org>;
 Sun, 24 Apr 2011 17:04:55 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimmDQWR0CwqZ5KbDQbQmca6XzLh=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 17:04:54 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|25b92f550a7c1dc0cd0028a8a6c6b9bcn3NH6H03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|31219CFD-340E-49B7-ABEF-66A76CEC857F@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <BANLkTimmDQWR0CwqZ5KbDQbQmca6XzLh=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <31219CFD-340E-49B7-ABEF-66A76CEC857F@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=n3NH6H003563159700; tid=n3NH6H0035631597YX;
 client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: p3OG6HOl003907
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Problem with delivering of mail - Fwd: Undelivered Mail
 Returned to Sender
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>,
 <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>,
 <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:06:21 -0000

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 J=F8rgensen wrote:

> seems like there was something up with the mail for a while...
>=20
>=20
> ---------- 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
>=20
>=20
> This is the mail system at host ietfc.amsl.com.
>=20
> I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
> be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
>=20
> For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
>=20
> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
> delete your own text from the attached returned message.
>=20
>                   The mail system
>=20
> <v6ops@ietfc.amsl.com>: mail forwarding loop for v6ops@ietfc.amsl.com
>=20
> 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
>=20
>=20
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Roger J=F8rgensen" <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>
>=20
>>>> remove that particular option from the table when a user, operator =
or vendor is considering what should be deployed/implemented...
>>=20
>> 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?
>=20
>=20
> The interesting thing about this entire 6to4 discussing is that there
> is pretty much two sides
>=20
>=20
> * Those that wish 6to4 gone because it cause more problem than it
> solve, they also consider it too costly to fix considering other
> options.
>=20
>=20
> * 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.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> 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?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
>=20
> 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
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
>=20
> 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

