North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: unwise filtering policy from cox.net

  • From: Leigh Porter
  • Date: Thu Nov 22 02:59:11 2007

Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Barry Shein <[email protected]> writes:

P.S. It's an interesting thought. The only approach to a solution I
could imagine is that the whole address would have to be passed in the
MX query.

Once upon a time (1987) there was this experimental facility called MB
(mailbox) records which did exactly that.  Unfortunately, they never
caught on in any real way, and the only historical mark that they seem
to have left is the rather odd way in which we express the RNAME
(mailbox of the responsible party) in an SOA record.

Maybe it's an idea whose time has come again.  How many years would it
take to have a meaningful rollout if we start now?  10?  20?  OK,
nevermind then.  :-P

---Rob

Yeah 'cus by then there will be no address space left, all the routers would have blown up with too many prefixes, sea levels would have risen by 100 M and half the world will be under water. Not to mention the fallout from the middle east nuclear exchange, the bird flu epidemic, the asteroid hit and that the oil shortage means that China can no longer make any cheap plastic tat. If there is no cheap plastic tat, then Internet commerce will die because there will be nothing to buy!

--
Leigh