SMTP over IPv6 : gmail classifying nearly all IPv6 mail as spam since 20140818
thenewme91 at gmail.com
Sat Aug 23 07:51:26 CEST 2014
I was under the impression that it wasn't so much about there being more
IPv6 spam as much as tracking IPv6 reputation based on addresses was
If a spammer gets a hold of a /64, then the spammer can send 18 billion
billion (~2^64) different email addresses, each coming from a different IP
address. Never-mind that a spammer can go to a half-dozen tunnel brokers
and get /48s for free.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/08/2014 11:16, 🔓Dan Wing wrote:
> > On Aug 22, 2014, at 7:42 AM, Matthew Huff <mhuff at ox.com> wrote:
> >> Currently it is not feasible to do ipv6 reputation filtering. IPv4
> reputation filtering is a big part of most anti-spam engines, so without
> it, SPF / DKIM of domain reputation is the best alternative.
> >> BTW, we have had to remove all IPv6 from our mail gateways due to the
> large number of Exchange SBS with broken isatap/6to4 tunnels causing mail
> to blackhole.
> > MTU issue?
> I can't speak for Teredo, but for 6to4 there is a whole list of
> possible issues ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6343 ). PMTUD failure
> and/or MSS negotiation failure are on the list, and so is reverse
> DNS failure.
> > -d
> >> These have been at small web based retailers which don't have hosted
> email. After the third incident, we yanked our IPv6 from our MX/gateways.
> >> ----
> >> Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
> >> Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577
> >> OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ipv6-ops-bounces+mhuff=ox.com at lists.cluenet.de [mailto:
> ipv6-ops-bounces+mhuff=ox.com at lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of Nick Hilliard
> >> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 10:25 AM
> >> To: Lorenzo Colitti; Laurent GUERBY
> >> Cc: IPv6 Ops list
> >> Subject: Re: SMTP over IPv6 : gmail classifying nearly all IPv6 mail as
> spam since 20140818
> >> On 22/08/2014 15:16, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> >>> Are you following the "Additional guidelines for IPv6" section of
> >>> https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126 ?
> >> Lorenzo,
> >> it looks like Google is trying to enforce SPF / DKIM on ipv6 connections
> >> where there is no similar requirement for ipv4. Is there a particular
> >> reason for this? It's causing a lot of breakage.
> >> Nick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ipv6-ops