[166260] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: comcast ipv6 PTR
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brielle Bruns)
Tue Oct 15 12:38:50 2013
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:37:32 -0600
From: Brielle Bruns <bruns@2mbit.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <87mwmao693.fsf@nemi.mork.no>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/15/13 10:20 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> In any case: All of you should expect legitimate, technical brilliant
> users attempting to connect to your SMTP servers from IPv6 addresses
> with no PTR records. This is not going to go away. You are of course
> free to refuse those connections, but personally I find a that rather
> arrogant and pretty stupid decision. The existence of a PTR record is
> one of many factors to consider for your spam filter. There never has
> been any reason to make it an absolute requirement, and I am pretty sure
> the score needs to be lowered with IPv6.
Or, as an alternative, actually use the SPF records that multiple big
companies keep telling people to make sure they have.
I have my SPF records set to allow my IPv6 and IPv4 senders, why are
they ignoring that and going just for an outright reject on inbound ipv6
mail?
At least, if its a defer, it has the chance to bounce over to one of my
backup mail servers that doesn't have IPv6 (or in one case, has a mail
server out of my directly assigned from ARIN /48 with working rdns).
--
Brielle Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group
http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
