From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77EFB3BA8E
 for <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>;
 Mon, 22 Oct 2018 05:05:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501)
 id B95C0B0; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 11:05:48 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail;
 t=1540199148; bh=qs4L4XH9yamNCgB4ggCRl7XbCTWXE7ESgo8GABWuehg=;
 h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=S+aEeNZ27zEZpxgvIa/F4brvCGLcR0hhW5em71M4ic0lYKWPCzodt9ZHnOvNqRdGL
 T7TwlIniB7s+Tr3CeWAXmE7vMxLwP+OdbWY4cz6EqPbJinsUbhO3jy53al4waGh14m
 tjXj8R02IPVRXwQnW1hMXhJ15KWvRNxurdiM6guw=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2D6CAF;
 Mon, 22 Oct 2018 11:05:48 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 11:05:48 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
cc: cerowrt-devel <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1810211541180.4351@qynat-yncgbc>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1810221103380.26856@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <A83722D3-AED3-484E-A25C-946C5237B2C5@gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1810192103120.26856@uplift.swm.pp.se>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1810191115190.4973@nftneq.ynat.uz>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1810211824070.26856@uplift.swm.pp.se>
 <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.1810211541180.4351@qynat-yncgbc>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Wicked OT: 240.0.0.0/4 netblock
X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project
 <cerowrt-devel.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/cerowrt-devel>,
 <mailto:cerowrt-devel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:cerowrt-devel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel>,
 <mailto:cerowrt-devel-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 09:05:50 -0000

On Sun, 21 Oct 2018, David Lang wrote:

> leaking to the outside in e-mail headers or other payload is no different 
> from the current RFC local addresses

Well, it is. For instance spam detection software might think that class-E 
in mail header means obligatory SPAM. I don't know, I'm just speculating.

> The problem would be if you allowed the address to leak in the IP headers.

There can be problems outside of just IP headers. The SIP people have IPv6 
problems even if they're not doing IPv6 (since it can pop up in the 
SIP signaling payload). There are lots of protocols that carry this kind 
of information within the protocol, and it does leak.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se