[170416] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 isn't SMTP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Mar 27 08:47:49 2014
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <BF0BDE34-9F51-481D-88A5-97773CC513D5@linkedin.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 05:40:38 -0700
To: Franck Martin <fmartin@linkedin.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 27, 2014, at 3:24 AM, Franck Martin <fmartin@linkedin.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Mar 26, 2014, at 11:26 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:12 PM, Robert Drake <rdrake@direcpath.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On 3/26/2014 10:16 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> and user@2001:db8::1.25 with user@192.0.2.1:25. Who had the good =
idea to use : for IPv6 addresses while this is the separator for the =
port in IPv4? A few MTA are confused by it.
>>> At the network level the IPv6 address is just a big number. No =
confusion there. At the plaintext level the naked IPv6 address should =
be wrapped in square brackets.
>>>=20
>>> From:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.2
>>>=20
>>=20
>> Two errors, actually=85 As an RFC-821 address, it should be =
user@[IP]:port in both cases (user@[192.0.2.1]:25 and =
user@[2001:db8::1]:25).
>>=20
> indeed, but MTAs are know to accept any kind of non RFC compliant =
emails and trying to make some sense out of it=85 :P see =
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7103 which tries to address some of it in =
a more deterministic way.
>=20
Sure, but that doesn=92t mean we should be sending random garbage =
deliberately.
Owen
