IPv6 isn't SMTP

Franck Martin fmartin at linkedin.com
Thu Mar 27 10:24:54 UTC 2014


On Mar 26, 2014, at 11:26 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> 
> On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:12 PM, Robert Drake <rdrake at direcpath.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 3/26/2014 10:16 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>>> 
>>> and user at 2001:db8::1.25 with user at 192.0.2.1:25. Who had the good idea to use : for IPv6 addresses while this is the separator for the port in IPv4? A few MTA are confused by it.
>> At the network level the IPv6 address is just a big number.  No confusion there.  At the plaintext level the naked IPv6 address should be wrapped in square brackets.
>> 
>> From:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.2
>> 
> 
> Two errors, actually… As an RFC-821 address, it should be [email protected][IP]:port in both cases ([email protected][192.0.2.1]:25 and [email protected][2001:db8::1]:25).
> 
indeed, but MTAs are know to accept any kind of non RFC compliant emails and trying to make some sense out of it… :P see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7103 which tries to address some of it in a more deterministic way.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140327/7848943c/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list