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

Mon Mar 31 10:30:14 UTC 2014

Subject: Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition Date: Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:17:19AM -0400 Quoting Patrick W. Gilmore (patrick at ianai.net):
> On Mar 30, 2014, at 16:40 , Måns Nilsson <mansaxel at besserwisser.org> wrote:
> > Subject: Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition Date: Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 11:06:11AM -0400 Quoting Patrick W. Gilmore (patrick at ianai.net):
> >>> On Mar 29, 2014, at 3:15, Måns Nilsson <mansaxel at besserwisser.org> wrote:
> >>> Quoting John R. Levine (johnl at iecc.com):
> >>>>> Ergo, ad hominem. Please quit doing that.
> >>>>> As a side note I happen to run my own mail server without spam filters
> >>>>> -- it works for me. I might not be the norm, but then again, is there
> >>>>> really a norm? (A norm that transcends SMTP RFC reach, that is --
> >>>> 
> >>>> I know a lot of people who run a lot of mail systems, and let's just
> >>>> say you're so far out in the long tail we need a telescope to see
> >>>> you.
> >>> 
> >>> I will not debate with people who resort to humiliation techniques
> >>> when questioned.
> >> 
> >> I will not argue whether you were humiliated as that is something only you can decide.
> > 
> > The puny attempt at "master suppression technique"[0]  was identified
> > as such and countermeasures were launched. No damage done.
> 
> I was serious. Your reaction .. well, I shouldn't say anything more lest you call me puny again. (What were you saying about humiliation techniques? Glad to see you would never be hypocritical.)

My apologies. I was not refering to your statement -- if that was not
clear I should most certainly have written more clearly.

> >> However, John was still factually correct. No big deal, lots of people are humiliated by facts. Although I admit I didn't find the quote above terribly humiliating myself. 
> > 
> > You have a point. Further, I do not debate the truth in the statement. My
> > personal email system IS small -- I did even state that -- but that does
> > not mean I do not run larger systems for others, nor does it mean that
> > the general public should dismiss my ideas and only listen to people
> > who brag about their acquaintances.  There are other much more compelling
> > reasons not to do as I say. 
> 
> You misunderstand. Or perhaps I did?
> 
> I read John's statement to be in reference to your stance, i.e. running without spam filters. Not that your server is small.

I read "you handle no big amount of e-mail and I know people who do and
therefore you should STFU and not bother us with your silly ideas about
following standards" in Johns message, and while that might seen like
one of many interpretations of what was written, it is an interpretation
I hope to be not so far out on the insulted fringe so as to be silly.

> John can clarify if he likes. But either way, running without spam filters is beyond unusual these days.

Indeed. 

> My personal server is run with very few filters, all of which REJECT or accept and send to a box I read. I have no "spam folder". So while I am not as far down the tail as you are, I am definitely out of the mainstream. The only reason I mention that is so you don't go researching for another reason to "identify" my comments as anything except exactly what they say.

Oh, I'm not hoping to pick a fight. Bad move to pick fights with people
that function as mediators.

> >> Also, realize that John has already done more to stop spam in his career then you and your thousand closest friends ever will. (E.g. Look up abuse.net.) Again not humiliation, just a fact.
> >> 
> >> Feel free to plonk me as well. I won't be humiliated. :-)
> > 
> > I won't. There is a clear divide between politely pointing out facts
> > and abusing facts to tell people that their opinion does not matter.
> > 
> > And, for the record, I do not support spamming in any form. But the
> > mitigation techniques MUST NOT impose undue constraints on the legitimate
> > use of e-mail, even when it is not vetted by passing it through big
> > insecure monitored US webmail providers.
> 
> I like your use of MUST.
> 
> However, I think you'll find your definition of "undue" and most of the rest of the Internet's is vastly different.

I'm fully aware of that. The clear separation between network and
application that is at the core of IP is easily compromised by the
best intentions.

-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
I selected E5 ... but I didn't hear "Sam the Sham and the Pharoahs"!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140331/3fae5ed2/attachment.sig>