From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 19 09:45:15 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDC1E40A for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:45:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from the-host.seacom.mu (ge-0.ln-01-mba.ke.seacomnet.com [41.87.100.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01FF7113A for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:45:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=the-host.localnet) by the-host.seacom.mu with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WG3JM-0004Jv-No; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:19:24 +0200 From: Mark Tinka Organization: SEACOM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Reverse DNS question Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:19:02 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.37.6-24-desktop; KDE/4.6.0; i686; ; ) References: <20140218180620.0807880cf0dd661482e394b9@3dresearch.com> <5303F01C.3030205@bluerosetech.com> <53047301.4050201@qeng-ho.org> In-Reply-To: <53047301.4050201@qeng-ho.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2077187.cAQqAD4e0g"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201402191119.02667.mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Cc: Arthur Chance , Darren Pilgrim X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: mark.tinka@seacom.mu List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:45:15 -0000 --nextPart2077187.cAQqAD4e0g Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:01:53 AM Arthur Chance=20 wrote: > Slightly changing the topic, does anyone have any idea > how IPv6 is going to affect use of RDNS for spam > prevention? Given that machines will often have multiple > addresses, do we have to bolt down our MTAs to using > specific publicly visible addresses, or is RDNS just > going to get dropped. I don't have an IPv6 system to > play with yet. =46rom a spam prevention perspective, nothing changes,=20 operationally. My expectation is that mail server operators will require=20 similar checks in IPv6. Mark. --nextPart2077187.cAQqAD4e0g Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJTBHcGAAoJEGcZuYTeKm+GhUMP/jqFhPCQNljwy6VqOEmuHHhY OxKiD5rTmvByJvcA3K0Ldtrs3ola9yB87EoswOUmA5E/kaXboVQGAemeZd5vzzVY 1rsF2RNhfC4JiFey9+38Rc1CBXzVEGFeKuhGjAMcJWQ86eTZk8PCfSVaRpqbqK66 LHduh67Bg+oXIGZIFw/V4vbaMTuqx6uCLJZMBPSGrdLKSeu1tWXIc+x9lDn3rOGR lsAAcFcu45/3iSeSjpYbNGMVlmZjXHdEuu0o5awIgEHY0rK2k7pNOB4i/kgEmoRF 0tWAMESt+4Khc6tMNh3Cp7GHBdxvu3MrcQKAmUVnON3+bSTvpQP+1RtoDelF8jhi iW4kFytEIs30zcTXBirfsuYubx1/Pse8E51vXQyYHZPQpOKBh4Rcez8MVJs7hUC2 dOHXc0S3RX6wTW/rmMfP+wFf6To8T7f/hhDmd3cDkODAauttFO4Rzwj8IfHd8nbm bP6LxaFdhL0ItWr6QiAlR5l9SY4C4cjxaUjTGVxLSGMoZUO18Am46m/GVeSP0BBN iVUzQk6qHfL5QmNB1cJdj4/JHTAvQoRtna6jwshjDPm5yWf1Qi6MSnN3BnyNgfaY 9Tk8ex/l/k7sVz3hXlIzP+tT6yyp4x5kqT3I/EUswK9wm7+jhLJGAApigLco0GL6 DrVlk/LboF/pYibjHtna =fFhZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2077187.cAQqAD4e0g--