4 ms·

That's not what I am observing while running a number email servers which having both IPv4 and IPv6. Spam is only on IPv4 and about 80% of legitimate email is o

That's not what I am observing while running a number email servers which having both IPv4 and IPv6. Spam is only on IPv4 and about 80% of legitimate email is on IPv6.

holowoodman 2y ago
Yes, but those facts don't reach the email filtering business: There, IPv4 IPs have some reputation, maybe good or bad. IPv6 "just doesn't exist" and has a universally bad reputation. Thus your IPv6-Emails will be filtered and dropped more often, even though you are correct that actually IPv6 is an indicator of non-spam. I've got quite a few transport rules to work around those kinds of braindead filters...
- eqvinox 2y ago
  > IPv6 "just doesn't exist" and has a universally bad reputation. I've been sending my mail via IPv6 for ages without issues… did you mean reputation or reputation?
  - holowoodman 2y ago
    > I've been sending my mail via IPv6 for ages without issues… In most cases it does work and there are no problems. But especially medium-sized businesses who run their own email through some crappy mailfiltering middlebox file anything that comes from or through an IPv6 endpoint to spam. > did you mean reputation or reputation? I don't understand your question. I meant IP address reputation, which is what many mail filtering systems use to estimate spam probability or outright reject email. See for example https://www.spamhaus.org/ip-reputation/ https://www.spamhaus.org/ip-reputation/
    - remram 2y ago
      That does not match my experience either. In fact I don't see why any mail server would bother getting and configuring an IPv6, listen on it, just to drop all received messages. Just don't listen on v6, that would achieve your goal, would prevent reputable dual-stack senders (like Google!) to send messages over v6 that you'll drop, and simplify your configuration.
    - eqvinox 2y ago
      > I don't understand your question. I meant IP address reputation, […] There's reputation of the IP address(es) among spam filters, and there's reputation among human operators configuring mail servers. I was trying to riff on ambiguity with ambiguity, that wasn't particularly helpful, sorry.

That's not what I am observing while running a number email servers which having both IPv4 and IPv6. Spam is only on IPv4 and about 80% of legitimate email is on IPv6.

holowoodman 2y ago

Yes, but those facts don't reach the email filtering business: There, IPv4 IPs have some reputation, maybe good or bad. IPv6 "just doesn't exist" and has a universally bad reputation. Thus your IPv6-Emails will be filtered and dropped more often, even though you are correct that actually IPv6 is an indicator of non-spam. I've got quite a few transport rules to work around those kinds of braindead filters...

eqvinox 2y ago
> IPv6 "just doesn't exist" and has a universally bad reputation. I've been sending my mail via IPv6 for ages without issues… did you mean reputation or reputation?
- holowoodman 2y ago
  > I've been sending my mail via IPv6 for ages without issues… In most cases it does work and there are no problems. But especially medium-sized businesses who run their own email through some crappy mailfiltering middlebox file anything that comes from or through an IPv6 endpoint to spam. > did you mean reputation or reputation? I don't understand your question. I meant IP address reputation, which is what many mail filtering systems use to estimate spam probability or outright reject email. See for example https://www.spamhaus.org/ip-reputation/ https://www.spamhaus.org/ip-reputation/
  - remram 2y ago
    That does not match my experience either. In fact I don't see why any mail server would bother getting and configuring an IPv6, listen on it, just to drop all received messages. Just don't listen on v6, that would achieve your goal, would prevent reputable dual-stack senders (like Google!) to send messages over v6 that you'll drop, and simplify your configuration.
  - eqvinox 2y ago
    > I don't understand your question. I meant IP address reputation, […] There's reputation of the IP address(es) among spam filters, and there's reputation among human operators configuring mail servers. I was trying to riff on ambiguity with ambiguity, that wasn't particularly helpful, sorry.