From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org  Thu Oct 10 20:06:06 2019
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1])
 by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9EB11307AD
 for <freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org>;
 Thu, 10 Oct 2019 20:06:06 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org)
Received: from be-well.ilk.org (be-well.ilk.org [23.30.133.173])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46q2CK2FdQz4WVy
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 20:06:05 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org)
Received: from lowell-desk.be-well.ilk.org (router.lan [172.30.250.2])
 by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739F433C1E
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:05:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by lowell-desk.be-well.ilk.org (Postfix, from userid 1147)
 id 565A415D03CC; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:05:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org>
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
References: <20191007.151841.1094708479149685365.yasu@utahime.org>
 <8spu-p72a-wny@FreeBSD.org>
 <20191009101412.lwxyqcdaqtsvq2ym@ivaldir.net>
 <20191009143048.zliwcrjx7ahe67a7@ivaldir.net>
 <b3429dc4-06cc-3a9b-604a-5c513eb61b4c@netfence.it>
 <23967.35617.571449.908018@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:05:53 -0400
In-Reply-To: <23967.35617.571449.908018@jerusalem.litteratus.org> (Robert
 Huff's message of "Thu, 10 Oct 2019 15:48:49 -0400")
Message-ID: <444l0gl61q.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (berkeley-unix)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46q2CK2FdQz4WVy
X-Spamd-Bar: +
Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none;
 spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org has
 no SPF policy when checking 23.30.133.173)
 smtp.mailfrom=freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [1.91 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[];
 NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.17)[-0.172,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[];
 TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain];
 MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+];
 PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-ports@freebsd.org];
 AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[];
 NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.13)[0.132,0]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[ilk.org];
 R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_NO_TLS_LAST(0.10)[];
 FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[];
 SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[];
 ASN(0.00)[asn:7922, ipnet:23.30.0.0/15, country:US];
 MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[];
 IP_SCORE(-0.05)[ip: (0.15), ipnet: 23.30.0.0/15(0.81), asn: 7922(-1.15),
 country: US(-0.05)]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 20:06:06 -0000

Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> writes:

> Andrea Venturoli writes:
>
>>  I'm building without IPv6, just because it's one (currently
>>  useless) less thing to worry about (settings, security, etc...).
>
> 	Phrased differently: one less possible failure mode.

At the cost of one less possible success mode...