unwise filtering policy from cox.net
leigh.porter at ukbroadband.com
Thu Nov 22 07:57:13 UTC 2007
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> writes:
>> P.S. It's an interesting thought. The only approach to a solution I
>> could imagine is that the whole address would have to be passed in the
>> MX query.
> Once upon a time (1987) there was this experimental facility called MB
> (mailbox) records which did exactly that. Unfortunately, they never
> caught on in any real way, and the only historical mark that they seem
> to have left is the rather odd way in which we express the RNAME
> (mailbox of the responsible party) in an SOA record.
> Maybe it's an idea whose time has come again. How many years would it
> take to have a meaningful rollout if we start now? 10? 20? OK,
> nevermind then. :-P
Yeah 'cus by then there will be no address space left, all the routers
would have blown up with too many prefixes, sea levels would have risen
by 100 M and half the world will be under water. Not to mention the
fallout from the middle east nuclear exchange, the bird flu epidemic,
the asteroid hit and that the oil shortage means that China can no
longer make any cheap plastic tat. If there is no cheap plastic tat,
then Internet commerce will die because there will be nothing to buy!
More information about the NANOG