Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Postwaster

  • Rank
  1. Sâ€pam which arrives via my backup MX is guaranteed to arrive via IPv6. However, I've not yet seen spam arrive at my primary MX over IPv6 without going via the backup… (What's going on here? I type “Sâ€pam†– capital ‘S’ – and it ends up as “spamâ€â€¦ aha, inserting a zero-width joiner ‘fixes’ it…)
  2. Postwaster

    IPv6 Routing Support

    I just hit this one. My MXes all have IPv6 addresses, and the backup MX forwards to the primary over IPv6. So spam received via the backup will need header mangling in order to be reported, and spam received ‘directly’ may need header mangling. (Also, the primary does greylisting; yahoo.com retries a lot, but most just… go away.) Personally, I'd consider the following substitutions to be fine even though the header text would be changed: Localhost: ::1 → IPv4 in IPv6 (example address): ::ffff: → I don't see anything which can be done about other IPv6 addresses (except, possibly, link-local being handled much like RFC1918 addresses?); but once SpamCop start handling IPv6, this will be moot.