= Сообщение: 1887 из 12549 ====================================== ENET.SYSOP = От : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555 02 Jan 15 13:31:47 Кому : Björn Felten 02 Jan 15 13:31:47 Тема : binkp.net is listed in rpz.spamhaus.org FGHI : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:280/5555+54a68fb4 На : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:203/2+54a5fa2e = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP850 ================================== Ответ: area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:230/0+54a6aa6f ============================================================================== Hello Björn,
On Friday January 02 2015 02:53, you wrote to me:
MvdV>> It is not a matter of IPv6 only software, it is a matter of not MvdV>> getting a public IPv4 address any more.
BF> I don't understand where you found this "rule".
Keep in mimd that this was a response to Benny. Given the difficulty of interpreting Benny's writing, it is no surprise that the responses to Benny's writings are easely misinterpreted as well. I wasn't citing any rule. I was merely trying to get Benny to understand that one of the reasons we will need IPv6 in the (near?) future is that sysops will not be able to get a public IPv4 address any more. And that it is better to fix the roof before it starts raining...
BF> If you try to connect to a node, using the information in the BF> nodelist, and it only responds to IPv6 calls, then it's an IPv6 only BF> system in my book.
BF> Just because you can cheat your way around the nodelist info,
Who is cheating in this case? To anyone with a binkd mailer it is obvious that 203/1 - which is listed as IPv6 only - is an AKA of 203/2, which is listed as dual stack.
So what we have here is two doors leading to the same room. The one is labelled "dual stack", the other "IPv6 only". So..., is there really an IPv6 only system or is it just a labelling trick?
BF> knowing the inner workings of a particular system, does that BF> disqualify the INO4 flag? Do the rest of you here think so too?
So let the reader judge for himself who is cheating.
