Subject: problems with mail.ietf.org

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:29:04 +0200

mail.ietf.org changed its IPv4 address (it was 64.170.98.32,
now it is 208.66.40.236) leaving at its previous address
something (i.e., a SMTP server) which blindly eats messages.

I strongly suggest to remove the SMTP server at
the previous address so it no longer misleads people
to believe their messages where successfully posted,
or worse, "I proposed to fix the IP protocol by putting
the addresses in the right order and nobody objects?!" (:-).

Thanks

[email-masked]

PS: telnet 64.170.98.32 smtp gets in the banner:
220 ietfb.amsl.com ESMTP Postfix
(on the correct 208.66.40.236 it is ietfc.amsl.com).

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 09:02:20 -0400

I have reported this issue. Something will be posted here when it is resolved.

Regards
Marshall

On Apr 22, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Francis Dupont wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:59:52 -0400

> the addresses in the right order and nobody objects?!" (:-).

Francis,

I don't understand what you think is a problem or what problem
you are encountering.   An MX query for ietf.org yields
mail.ietf.org and an address query for the latter yields the
current address (as do the additional information records for
the first query).  Both sets of records seem to have
appropriately-short TTLs.  So I'm having trouble guessing why
your systems are still seeing 64.170.93.22, much less sending
mail to it.

I agree that having a system floating around that runs an SMTP
server but that eats messages ("blindly" or not) is undesirable
as an operational policy, but I'm having trouble understanding
why any of us should actually care if other things are
configured and working correctly (as they appear to be).

Could you explain?

    john

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 18:14:07 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

   So I'm having trouble guessing why your systems are still seeing
   64.170.93.22, much less sending mail to it.
   
=> a long time ago mail.ietf.org anti-spam dropped SMTP over IPv6
from a MTA address without a PTR. I put a workaround using the IPv4
address (the old one), it was fixed but I didn't remove the
workaround.

   I agree that having a system floating around that runs an SMTP
   server but that eats messages ("blindly" or not) is undesirable
   as an operational policy.

=> exactly and BTW 32.98.170.64.in-addr.arpa has still a PTR to
mail.ietf.org.
   
Regards

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:34:21 -0400

--On Friday, April 22, 2011 18:14 +0200 Francis Dupont
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>    So I'm having trouble guessing why your systems are still
> seeing    64.170.93.22, much less sending mail to it.
>    
> => a long time ago mail.ietf.org anti-spam dropped SMTP over
> IPv6 from a MTA address without a PTR. I put a workaround
> using the IPv4 address (the old one), it was fixed but I
> didn't remove the workaround.

It then seems to me that the only thing that ought to be done on
an emergency basis is precisely for you to get rid of the
workaround.   As operational practices go, leaving kludges in
place longer than needed is always a cause of problems sooner or
later.

>    I agree that having a system floating around that runs an
> SMTP    server but that eats messages ("blindly" or not) is
> undesirable    as an operational policy.
> 

Yep.  Both should probably be cleared up, but it isn't something
I could easily be convinced is an emergency.

best,
    john