I wouldn't be surprised if that's intentional. There's an explicit hesitance on the part of mail providers to accept v6 mail, since they use IP addresses as a reputation mechanism. IPs that originate spam mail get summarily executed, and getting new IPs that have a high antispam reputation is actually quite expensive.

In other words, it's a Sybil-resistance mechanism, called Proof-of-IPv4. It works specifically because v4 addresses are scarce. v6 addresses are not nearly as such. Everything that makes IPv6 great for the Internet at large makes it terrible for mail providers. For example, because the original v6 design wanted to eat lower link layers, it reserves half the v6 address for an embedded MAC64. This never really panned out, but it's terrible for security, so every v6-capable OS nowadays will rotate addresses every few hours. The average machine will have hundreds of addresses. How do you assign a usable notion of per-IP reputation to that?

You could use v6 subnets for reputation, but there's still 64 subnet bits - enough to stick an entire IPv4 subnetwork inside of each IPv4 address. Some ISPs actually will assign a /64 per customer (because Comcast needs something to sell to Business customers), while others assign /56s or /48s. So there isn't even one granularity of subnetting that you can use for reputation tracking on v6.

Meanwhile, v4 pricing is getting worse and worse, which is great for mail providers. They don't necessarily need to turn a profit on incoming mail, but they do need to make it expensive for people who want to send lots of spam.

This could likely be the reason for poor IPv6 support but highlights the importance of shifting (much more) to domain based reputation. If a domains reputation is at risk, you can bet domain holders will be extremely careful not to allow outgoing spam.

Spammers and scammers already use domains as a disposable commodity creating them or using hacked ones for single campaigns and moving on. Part of filtering based on IPv4 is not only scarcity but accountability. When the owner of the netblock reassigns the ip and its already blacklisted it can create a problem for them and incentivize them to police their own network. Domains are also worse in that its easier to use fake information and be untraceable. its also understandably easier to get a response legal or otherwise from a co-location or isp than a domain registrar. Maybe ipv4 will always be preferred for email just because its more difficult/expensive and therefore less appealing for temporary malicious use.

Domains are less scarce than addresses. By design you can create as many subdomains as you like. (e.g. `abc.spam.com` is too low-rep? Now let's try `def.spam.com`...) You might imagine negative reputation to travel up to parent domains, but that causes problems with public suffixes and TLDs. (e.g. is `microsoft.com` a bad domain because it's got the same TLD as `spam.com`?)

The whole point of using a scarce identifier is to allow for a "neutral" reputation for new identifiers. If identifiers are less scarce, then known-bad actors can get free reputation (from bad to neutral) by just starting over with a new one. Which means that you have to distrust neutral reputation more. Without some level of scarcity of identification, introductions don't really work, because I have no idea if the new host I'm being talked to from today is just the one I banned yesterday wearing a different mask. This ultimately implies e-mail moving to some kind of federated whitelist system rather than the current system of federated blacklists.

Subdomains are not as much a problem as you would think. There is a resource ( https://publicsuffix.org/ ) that lists all public suffix domains. All direct subdomains of these are in full control of all their own subdomains, and thus can share the same spam reputation.

e.g. when .com is on the list, and .somesite.com is not on the list, [email protected] is from the same entity as [email protected]

Didn't publicsuffix effectively get DoSed by one of Apple's new requirements, causing a ton of people to apply to have their suffixes added to the list?

From what I gathered from that, publicsuffix is a poorly-funded semi-volunteer org that shouldn't be relied upon for anything critical.

If this is how MS/Google want to do email anti-spam, they should fund the public suffix list. Same with Apple for their App Store and WebKit uses.

(Btw I’m pretty sure almost everyone is already using domain-based spam scoring.)

They unfortunately use both domain and ip based reputation scores. The problem is there are effectively an infinite number of usable domains. Even after eliminating the sub-domain problem the fact is there are simply too many possible domain names that can be created and discarded on the fly for less than $5 a pop. Given the fact that bad reputation decays, they can simply rinse a repeat that process practically forever so long as they manage to make more than $5 per hour from thier spam. IPv4 addresses however, are far more scarce which is why most spam email opperations try to take over existing legitimate small email servers (commonly small businesses with thier own domain get targeted) in order to send out thier spam. Every time they succeed they use it not only to send spam emails, but Trojan viruses to all users contacts in the hope of infecting other businesses. They can even achieve this without infecting the server itself, but simply getting recipients to unknowingly run a script that tells Outlook to send the emails from whatever addresses the users has access to.

Filtering based on domain reputation has the same problem as trying to filter based IPv6 address reputation. They can easily change thier domain name at any time, and most spam operations do it every 15 minutes or so.

This also has a secondary problem for legitimate domain buyers. If the domain name they buy was previously used for spam that reputation will affect thier business for quite a while. There's actually a market where people buy domains with bad reputations, setup small legitimate businesses and get the reputation cleaned up, then sell the site domain and business for a substantial profit because a site with a good reputation history and established line of business will show up higher on internet searches.

Or more strict enforcement by the world on SPF, DMARC and DKIM policies

The problem of spam is actually solved, the problem is no one setups any of these security parameters correct, large and small companies alike all have bad SPF Records, bad or no DMARC, etc etc etc

Go to any internet-related forum and search history for those keywords. You will find countless stories of seemingly technically people who in the end give up on self hosting and switch to managed mail provider. Because even if you solve those policies perfectly, a personal mail server will have such a low rate of outgoing mail that all the big players will effectively treat it as history-less server and will occasionally route the mail into the black hole. There is no recourse for that.

If 99% of contacts you want to send mail to are on google/yahoo/microsoft you have to play by their rules. And those rules are effectively "send mail internally or gtfo".

I have self hosted personal mail for over a decade. There are occasional hiccups with deliverability to new gmail addresses, but that is it. In those cases, once a recipient marks me as not spam once, there aren’t any more problems.

I think maybe once in the last 3 years I ended up in someone’s spam box, total. In fact I just sent to a new gmail address and to a university I have never contacted before this week and both were delivered without issue.

Setting up DKIM/SPF/etc isn’t that hard and it’s fairly easy to verify with existing tools FYI.

It would be amazing if those of you who have successfully self-hosted would get together and make a comprehensive write-up of how to self-host without getting blacklisted. I frequently see comments on both sides of this ("I can't send anything!" vs. "You just have to do it right") and it seems like if there could be some resource (that cuts down the complexity as far as is reasonable) on how to do this from the ground up, there could be much more wide-spread adoption of self-hosting.

Personally, I'm hesitant because I don't know if the end of all my effort will be constant blacklisting. If I could be confident that if I do it right I won't get blacklisted, I probably would.

I think the parent is perhaps just lucky. A reason given for mail not getting to Microsoft servers was that a server IP controlled by the same hosting company had in the past been on a blacklist.

I was happy to move hosts to one that was considered trusted, but there was no way for me to know the IPv4 addresses the company had in the past, never mind if they'd been on a pertinent blacklist at some time.

Based on that I think it could work, but there are no guarantees that outside, historical characteristics won't screw things up for you.

I think I agree with you (RE: make a comprehensive write-up), but I also seem to remember thinking the same thing when I was setting up the latest iteration of the server and then googling it and finding that such a guide already exists :) Part of the problem is that it's an evolving system and things change over time.

Spam is an interesting problem. Assuming one self-hosts and makes their email address publicly available, then one can get a metric for how much spam is flying around. Eventually one will try to stop spam from coming to their inbox, and on doing so one might build a mental model for how the big mail providers combat spam and realize why one's emails are not being delivered. Then one might realize that one is sending mail that one would not willingly receive! And then take action to resolve.

In general though, there is some base effort to establish trust, and as long as you don't ruin it by sending spam, then you shouldn't end up on a blacklist. If you find that your IP was on a blacklist before it became yours, then work with the people that are blacklisting - but at that point it does become a bit of a job. I actually ran into an issue in my professional life where an AWS WAF rule started alerting on one of our own servers hosted in AWS because someone had previously used the IP for malware C&C.

Anyway - I will think on this and see if I can write something up. It's a good idea. My main concern is that there is a gap between the way I did things (sysadmin style) and the "new" way of doing things (containerized).

I use shared hosting and my trick is to only send emails that are more important to the recipient than to myself. In this way, if they don't receive it, they complain and then I resend it from gmail instead.

The biggest thing people do wrong with self hosting email is using residential IPs which are almost universally black/grey listed. Using a provider like linode, and checking the IP reputation ahead of time gave me better results when I self hosted.

That's not them doing something wrong though. There's nothing wrong in hosting a server at home. The problem is clearly the black/grey lists if they black/grey list residential IPs just because.

Might want to check the Terms of Use / AUP on your Residential service, because every one I have ever read says you can not host email, and 80% of them say you can host any server of any kind.

Now most of them do not actually enforce it unless you become a problem, but most of them do put active measures on the network to stop SMTP Servers

For example here is a Exerpt from Comcast AUP prohibiting email and web hosting [1]

>>>use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network (“Premises LAN”), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, email, web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;

[1] https://www.xfinity.com/corporate/customers/policies/highspe...

Google Fiber AUP[0] allows for hosting of anything for non-commercial purposes. Email is allowed as long as the email sent is not "unsolicited bulk commercial email". Time to update that worldview :) Every time we repeat something like "no one allows self hosting", the more people that will hear it and repeat it and make it a self fulfilling prophecy.

[0] https://fiber.google.com/legal/accepteduse/residential/

> Time to update that worldview :)

Why? Google Fiber is Available to less than 1% of US Households. Comcast is the largest Residential ISP last I looked in about 60-70% of US Markets...

ATT has the same policy, and I believe most of the other Cable Providers do as well. My guess would be over 90% of Residential Internet Plans today have a policy inline with Comcast not Google Fiber

Pointing to an outlier to the norm does not mean i need to update my worldview at all.

Regardless, “every one I have ever read” is no longer true. “Almost every one I have read”, perhaps?

I looked for market share info on Google Fiber but was unable to find it. Mind sharing your source?

i don't know about that. i've always used leased gigabit connections for my email. this article is about Hetzner specifically, which I've leased tons of servers and additional IPs from. AFAIK you don't know the IP you'll be getting until you pay for it unless things have changed recently.

With Tools like Mail-In-a-Box it is not really the tooling

The people that say "I Cant send anything" are likely trying to setup it up on a Residential or "Business" (which is really just a Residential with a slightly better SLA and less overselling) Internet Circuit... Not an Enterprise Internet Circuit

Hint: If they are trying to bundle TV Services with your Internet you are not on an Enterprise Line.

Even if you buy a dedicated IP from these services they still make is hard to impossible to send email on the circuit

you are confusing spam filtering with blocked emails.

The issue people have trying to send mail is with the latter, where the email won't even show up in the spam filters, it will either be blocked by the mail system or silently ignored.

When mail has gone undelivered due to non-spam reasons, I typically receive a bounce.

On my server, when I block a message due to trust, I reject the connection. When I block due to spam, the message is received but goes in the spam folder.

I get reports from Google/Microsoft/etc when other people try to send using my domains but their messages fail due to DKIM/SPF failures.

I just want to push back against the “it’s impossible to self host email” meme that seems comes around occasionally. Every time I’ve run into an issue there has been a solution.

> On my server, when I block a message due to trust, I reject the connection.

Is that how Google/Microsoft/etc. do it too? If not, then your practice really doesn't matter. Most of my friends have an @gmail.com address, so if Google would pretend to accept mail from my hypothetical mail server, but instead just drop it on the floor, that's a non-starter for me hosting my own mail.

I have never had a problem sending to gmail or Microsoft addresses that didn’t involve at least making it to the spam box. I can’t speak with absolute certainty how every email admin handles things, but I have run into issues sending mail to some domains where I got a bounce and was able to reach out to the admins and get it corrected. Accepting mail for delivery but failing to deliver must be a violation of some RFC or email standard as it makes it impossible to send mail as a non-megacorp.

What I would like to get across is that self hosting is not impossible or unacceptably unreliable. If Google and Microsoft have policies that make it difficult to send messages to gmail or hotmail users, that isn’t a reason in and of itself that we should not self host. It’s a reason that we should work with Google/Microsoft to have better policies - but accepting things as they are and writing off self hosting as impossible is eventually accepting control of email by a limited handful of corporations, which I don’t think is a good thing.

I've also had luck with self-hosted solutions. Gawd, email is a really backwards technology these days isn't it?

But...I've also been in the unfortunate position of leasing IPv4 addresses which were already blacklisted by various sources. It's not a terribly easy problem to solve if you need to contact customers NOW without using a 3rd party solution.

I'd imagine personal emails trigger different flags than a bulk newsletter from a small business. One of the key suggestions on setting up a mail server (or even something like Amazon SES) is to 'warm up' by progressively sending more and more emails. Volume and uniqueness are a big part of filters.

> I have self hosted personal mail for over a decade.

Maybe thats why it works for you. Try making new one?

As the saying goes, the best time to plant a tree was 10 years ago, the next best time is today. Maybe it is tough to get trusted by the major providers in a short time period today, but if it’s something you’re interested in, don’t let that stop you!

Running a mailserver with correct DKIM, DMARC etc is not that difficult.

I recently made a presentation that has a full explanation of the techniques, why they exist and how they work, on Hetzner Cloud (from the original post):

https://nh2.me/recent/Running-your-own-mailserver.pdf

I find it very easy to configure with simple-nixos-mailserver (much easier than the manual setup on Ubuntu that I ran the years before):

https://gist.github.com/nh2/6814728dc3bea1508323e9bf2213c28d

Self-Hosted Mail servers have the problem that most ISP's will automatically add all of their Service IP;s to BlackLists specifically to prevent people from running mail services on their Internet connections.

Unless you have a Commercial Line that has be specifically designated for hosting content then it is likely any IP you are issued is added to Google/Microsoft/etc Blacklist by the ISP. Most of them clearly spell out in their terms that running a Mail Server on the circuit is forbidden.

No one self hosts email on their home internet. You rent out a cheap VPS to do it on.

How is that solved then if no one setups any of the security parameters correctly? That sounds like the exact opposite.

https "solves" Internet security, your bad of you don't use it.

Spammers have no trouble making those perfect, you're massively inexperienced on the topic.

I don't see why this is downvoted. Domains assign reputation to mail instead of the source IP, and it's fairly obvious that just buying a new domain and spamming from it would tank that domain's reputation for quite a while, even with proper spf/dkim and dmarc p=reject. If all of these are set up, you won't have issues sending from bad shared IPs like the default SES ones.

> If a domains reputation is at risk, you can bet domain holders will be extremely careful not to allow outgoing spam.

Generating domains is fairly cheap though.

lsjfdlakj.com

There, I just generated a new one with a clean reputation. Just spend US$ 10 to register it and off we go.

It has no reputation. That's different from a 'clean' reputation, which takes history to establish.

You often have to build a domain reputation first. Certainly for Microsoft hosted email. I for instance show users with a Microsoft email a plain mailto:[email protected] link on my contact/support form. This way the first email is from them to me which helps building reputation and minimizes the chances of my response going straight into the spam box or worse, silently dropped. Regular users can fill in a proper form and submit it from the support page.

I get more spam from Microsoft and other tech giants than anyone else.

It's the companies whom you rely on for email that are the worst abuser e.g. airlines need to inform you about delays and abuse this trust with holiday adverts incessantly.

Any company that claims to require your email for two factor auth should be given automatically generated fines for every email they ever send that is not auth related.

That would shake up Oracle sales dept. :)

I like it. I've always wanted to promote mailto: links over silly contact us forms (and all the hoops you have to jump through to keep them functional and not abused) but never had a really good argument for non-techy folks and lots of pushback that mailto: is "not standard" and "does not work for some people" with very little evidence. This is a nice story for the 'pros' column.

You could have a reputation based on /64 and to extend the subnet when you see a large number of spam coming from the same /56 or /48.

Classifying IP sets is a fantastic idea, I’ve seen mail bounce for the ASN. That parameter is unchanged between IPv4 and IPv6. Certainly, you can do it only when the provider is a classic spam heaven.

This is a perfectly reasonable approach that mirrors that of the current ipv4 reputation scheme.

Treating individual v6 addresses like individual v4 addresses is silly and nobody serious will take that approach.

> Some ISPs actually will assign a /64 per customer (because Comcast needs something to sell to Business customers)

FWIW, I actually have residential service from Comcast and they'll assign you a /60 if you request it. I then use /64s for my subnets/VLANs.

>Some ISPs actually will assign a /64 per customer (because Comcast needs something to sell to Business customers), while others assign /56s or /48s. So there isn't even one granularity of subnetting that you can use for reputation tracking on v6.

This is what is hindering adoption everywhere to be honest.

All of my forums, wikis, and game servers reject ipv6 purely for the same reason.

How is blanket-blocking better than assuming the worst and attaching reputation to /48's?

I'm surprised there's not some sort of database which records the size of subnets allocated to end-users

would be very useful

(business opportunity here guys!)

I've been working on this and have built that database, though we only expose at the IP level: https://bigpicture.io/docs/api/#ip-api.

What did you have in mind as far as a use case?

given abuse coming from a given IPv6 address: which subnet do I need to block to stop the user behind that address

(for fraud detection it switches from block to identify)

for IPv4 this is generally the /32 (the single IPv4 address)

for IPv6 it's probably a /64, but may be a /56 or even a /48, and on some crappy providers even a /128

if the subnet is smaller than you think it is you risk banning an entire ISP (or country), whereas if if it's too large the abuse continues

it's quite a complicated problem as by design you can have subletting (subnetting!) within a block, e.g. a VPS provider gets a /48 from its ISP, and then they sublets out /64s to their customers (while not necessarily giving them all their own RIPE/ARIN records)

Got it. Yeah, it's definitely tricky.

The other aspect is that a decent chunk of the IPv4 space at least is fairly dynamic. We've seen some blocks change owners every few weeks.

can i ask a question? is it possible for people to "own" ipv4 addresses? like we can own domain names? something like /29 Subnet or /28?

if i spent like a hundred bucks or something, i dont know... just asking. how would that work, does that "bring your own ip" that vps providers talk about mean this?

i

Yes by becoming an ASN.

In pactice you cannot have less than a /24 because nobody will announce less than a /24

Sort of like a public suffix list, except for IP addresses, which in my eyes makes the idea even worse.

Edit: Seeing your use-case, this should probably be part of the whois records.

> Edit: Seeing your use-case, this should probably be part of the whois records.

absolutely, assuming people subnetting to their customers delegate the space in the whois accordingly

(they do have an incentive to do that -- prevents all of their customers being banned if one misbehaves!)

> do need to make it expensive for people who want to send lots of spam.

You can use cloud providers, sure small ones do get blacklisted (which happens to also benefit Microsoft as they also are a cloud provider) but they can't really blacklist Googles or Amazons Cloud.

Google is not a good place to send spam. They'll delete your account and ban the cell number you used to SMS verify.

seems trivially resolvable for respectable email providers, just don't change your ipv6 source address.

the problem is that spammers can change their ipv6 addresses at less cost than ipv4

Can't the reputation mechanism rely on DKIM for identification?

> How do you assign a usable notion of per-IP reputation to that?

You don't and that's the point.

Stop bloody tracking me.

What should you as a mail provider do with this new information?

Oh I dunno, innovate?

Anther example of big cloud providers not taking v6 seriously - AWS wouldn't even let your IPv6 hosts talk to their API:

  $ dig +short a ec2.amazonaws.com
  52.46.140.46

  $ dig +short aaaa ec2.amazonaws.com
  (no response)

They now have a dual stack EC2 API endpoint. But you have to go out of your way to use as it is on a totally different domain, and also it is limited to few regions. us-east-2 region for example

  api.ec2.us-east-2.aws

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/APIReference/Using...

Our reason for this is that customers may have IP-based rules in their IAM policies. If we silently turned on IPv6 for existing endpoints, those policies would suddenly break without notice. Hence new names and SDK options for dual-stack.

Same with GCP, they just announced IPv6 availability for VMs in the last few days. Unbelievably you couldn't even get a IPv6 address for a GCP instance up to now! APIs don't work over IPv6, and lots of other stuff doesn't as well.

Microsoft + Email has been a combo from Hell for many years, blocking IPv6 addresses, deliverability issues all the time, psychotic Spam detector, complete disregard for the most basic rules on how Email works and the list goes on.

My first experience with MS Exchange long time ago was that the team responsible for the infrastructure (company with more than 100k employees) committed to reboot the server once a week, because otherwise it would blow up.

So yes, this is a long story.

Oh, my first contact with Exchange was discovering that the recently updated server couldn't read any of the backups on the proprietary format of the pre-update version of it. It seemed to be a common enough occurrence, because the email people just shrugged and started hacking the backup. I don't think that group was ever capable of restoring any Exchange backup, normally because of Exchange's problems.

But that was a long time ago. From what I hear, things are different now.

Sounds like unchecked IIS SMTP transport logs but hey it's been years since I maintained an on-premises Exchange server

And icloud too. They are very sensitive to ipv6.

In case of icloud, I attribute it to the Proofpoint spam filtering system, which also sell service to ups.com.

And even gmail, but at least gmail accept the email, then just flagged it as spam.

Same with Google's Report IP problems form, if you tries to put an IPv6 address it will always return: "Invalid IP address" and wouldn't let you submit the form.

Link: https://support.google.com/websearch/workflow/9308722?hl=en

Yes, I remember seeing this as well.

The irony here is that much of the inter-service traffic on the internet could already be sent over IPv6 without anyone noticing. Getting end users onto IPv6 is always going to be a challenge as, well, ISPs, but when my mail server talks to your mail server there's no need for this to be IPv4.

Also it can be said that connection between mail servers can be IPv4 even if IPv6 is mostly used in the world. It seems that there are pros to keep IPv4 reputation from GP, so possibly it happens.

Not that this matters much, as the chance to get an IP address delisted is pretty slim anyway.

I've completely given up to try to get my personal mail server delisted, as I can't even get Microsoft to tell me why they blacklisted it in the first place.

Instead I'm nowadays just rejecting all incoming emails originating from Microsoft with a message telling the sender to use another non-Microsoft email account.

It's just stupid. I never had problems with any other mail provider, but trouble with Microsoft as long as I can think of.

I think they only block /16 or maybe /24 blocks... Meaning they block entire ISP networks... What I do is to simply sign up to many cheap VPS until I get an IP that is not blocked... Then relay all e-mails via that server. I guess spammers have the same tactic, but it does work.

Microsoft has been ab-using IPv4 in context of Mail to target-specific hinder competition, so they have a lot of reasons to not support IPv6 well where this isn't as much doable.

(For example Microsoft has blocked whole IPv4 ranges of cloud providers (i.e. Microsoft Azure competition) for E-Mail, supposedly because of abuse. But all cloud providers are used by people "producing bad mails" and somehow only small to mid-sized ones are blacklisted while e.g. Google or Amazon are not and to be clear that had not been cloud providers in some arbitrary small country but e.g. the EU).

IPv6s are too cheap for most mailbox providers to take seriously. If someone sends spam, you need to block their IP, but they also need to lose money. Spammers don't care if they lose an IPv6. They'll just send spam from another.

(I don't really know what I'm talking about.)

That's where DKIM and SPF come in.

Not really. If you look at the numbers, spam almost always has these.

Yes really. With DKIM, you blacklist domains, not IPs. Of course, only if you do it properly. Hotmail doesn't...

You're pretending that domains aren't a cheap disposable commodity, they are.

That's to be expected. All it does is ensure the accuracy of the email sender. Which finally lets you attach reputation to domains instead of addresses.

No, I mean its to the point that mail with this signature is almost always (multiple 9s) spam.

Because most email providers will block you if yo don't have them now. And because of that, if you get blacklisted you need to buy a new domain, not just a new ip address.

But how can you possibly deliver email via IPv6 if their MX host doesn't have IPv6 address at all?

    $ host hotmail.com
    hotmail.com has address 204.79.197.212
    hotmail.com mail is handled by 2 hotmail-com.olc.protection.outlook.com.
    $ host hotmail-com.olc.protection.outlook.com.
    hotmail-com.olc.protection.outlook.com has address 104.47.57.161
    hotmail-com.olc.protection.outlook.com has address 104.47.58.161

On the other side, if a host announces that they have an IPv6 address - do you think they do it mostly for spamers?

    $ host gmail.com | grep handled | head -n1
    gmail.com mail is handled by 5 gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.
    $ host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.
    gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com has address 173.194.73.27
    gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2a00:1450:4010:c1c::1a

exactly, we're operating a fleet of SMTP servers and IPv4 procurement is big problem. We do by asking AWS to allocate a block and send email traffic via those IPs. We want to adopt IPv6 but the current email infrastructure doesn't support this.