why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition

Wed Mar 26 03:15:56 UTC 2014

Maybe we could give everyone globally unique numbers and end to end connectivity.  Then maybe the users themselves can send email directly to each other without going through this ESP cartel.

-Laszlo

On Mar 26, 2014, at 2:51 AM, Rob McEwen <rob at invaluement.com> wrote:

> On 3/25/2014 10:25 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
>> 
>> Like I said in a previous response, if you are going to make rdns a
>> requirement, why not make SPF and DKIM mandatory as well? 
> 
> many ISPs ALREADY require rDNS. So making that standard official for
> IPv6 is isn't asking for much! It is a NATURAL progression. As I
> mentioned in a previous message, i think IPv6 should go farther and
> require FCrDNS, with the host name ending with the sender's actual real
> domain so that proper identity is conveyed. (then when a spammer uses a
> "throwaway domain" or known spammy domain... as the domain at the end of
> the rDNS, they have only themselves to blame when the message is rejected!)
> 
> SPF is somewhat "dead"... because it breaks e-mail forwarding
> situations. Anyone who blocks on a bad SFP is going to have significant
> FPs. And by the time you've dialed down the importance of SPF to prevent
> FPs (either by the receiver not making too big of a deal about ir, or
> the sender using a NOT strict SFP), it then becomes impotent. About the
> only good usage of SPF is to change a domain's record to "strict" in
> situations where some e-mail on that domain is being "picked on" by a
> "joe job" where their address is forged into MANY spams over a period of
> time. (not just the occasional hit that everyone gets). otherwise, SPF
> is worthless.
> 
> Maybe we should require DKIM for IPv6, too? But what I suggested about
> FCrDNS seems like a 1st step to me.
> 
> -- 
> Rob McEwen
> +1 (478) 475-9032
> 
> 