[170279] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brielle Bruns)
Tue Mar 25 22:26:25 2014
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:25:57 -0600
From: Brielle Bruns <bruns@2mbit.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CALOgxGZb54wDQQ=cVcpZS9Jhy6xHzY3di+Y6fasqFQZBP=tawA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 3/25/14, 7:58 PM, TJ wrote:
> In an attempt to get this thread back on topic:
> * Does Google require rDNS for IPv4 mail sources?
After a quick test here, Google did not reject the mail from an IPv4
address that did not have rDNS.
> If so, doing so for IPv6 shouldn't be a surprise. Your current provider's
> inability to support rDNS for IPv6 is not a protocol failure, it is a
> provider failure.
>
> If not, is there an additional operational reason for them to do so in
> IPv6? ... and in that case, I'd come to the same end result,
> provider-failure.
>
> ... ?
Google willing to accept collateral damage for IPv6 mailing hosts, but
too severe of collateral damage for IPv4 ones that would affect too many
customers?
Like I said in a previous response, if you are going to make rdns a
requirement, why not make SPF and DKIM mandatory as well?
--
Brielle Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group
http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
