Poll on SMTP over IPv6 Usage
noel.butler at ausics.net
Wed Feb 19 05:45:33 CET 2014
On 19/02/2014 14:29, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 02/18/2014 07:55 PM, SM wrote:
> Hi Doug, At 17:52 18-02-2014, Doug Barton wrote: My point is that all the hooha about "We can't do mail over IPv6 because we can't do IP address reputation" seems to be nonsense. There are plenty of ways to do spam filtering that don't involve keeping a log of every single IP address that sends spam. People are used to blocking spam by IPv4 address. That makes it difficult to explain that it is no longer the better way for IPv4 connections, and nowadays for IPv6 connections.
Sorry I wasn't clear, but my post was already long enough. I understand
that blocking spam by IPv4 address hasn't been an effective solution by
itself for many years now, and I understand that the vendors are crying
foul because IPv6 makes their snake oil sales harder.
My purpose was to offer some actual concrete numbers from a mail server
that's hit relatively hard with spam, to demonstrate that the entire
argument of "We can't filter spam on IPv6" is specious. :)
I've been blocking for sometime spam on IPv6 from some 64's, all by the
way from china telecom.
Blocking by IP, why would that not be the best way, blocking by domain
name sure isn't.
We block only by IP from whatever spam source is used (4, or 6), and
rbldnsd handles ipv6 nicely (albeit in /64's - fair enough too, since
most end users get that, typically), so your MTA's query would get a
response from your DNSBL if it has an entry.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ipv6-ops