[170300] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff Kell)
Wed Mar 26 00:44:29 2014
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:42:05 -0400
From: Jeff Kell <jeff-kell@utc.edu>
To: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <53325892.2070801@cox.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 3/26/2014 12:33 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 3/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> 3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP
>>> connections is playing that uncomfortable game with
>>> one=C2=92s own combat boots. And not particularly productive.
>>
>> If you can figure out how to do effective spam filtering without
>> looking at the IP addresses from which mail arrives, you will be in a
>> position to make a whole lot of money.
> Is spam fighting really about SMTP? Or is it about abuse of the
> transport layer by (among other things) the SMTP?
Well, with current spam, the transport layer is irrelevant, given the
proper phished credentials :(
Jeff
