nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment
From: "Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks () vt edu>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 07:37:59 -0400
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 03:03:45 -0400, Rob McEwen said:
Likewise for spam filtering - spam filtering would be knocked back to the stone ages if IPv4 disappeared overnight. IPv6 is a spam sender's dream come true, since IPv6 DNSBLs are practically worthless.
Riddle me this: Why then have spammers not abandoned IPv4 and moved to IPv6 where we're totally powerless to stop their floods of spam? I'm tired of hearing the excuse "We can't move to IPv6 because then we couldn't stop the spam" - if that were true, then every organization that *has* moved to IPv6 would be drowning in spam.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- RE: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment, (continued)
- RE: worse than IPv6 Pain Experiment Kevin Menzel (Oct 10)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Matt Palmer (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment J. Hellenthal via NANOG (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Valdis Klētnieks (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Forrest Christian (List Account) (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 06)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Rob McEwen (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Valdis Klētnieks (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Stephen Satchell (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Rob McEwen (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment bzs (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Denis Fondras (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Karl Auer (Oct 07)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Michel Py (Oct 07)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Owen DeLong (Oct 07)
- RE: IPv6 Pain Experiment Michel Py (Oct 08)