On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Tim Chown wrote:
Received: from s0.nanog.org (s0.nanog.org = [2001:48a8:6880:95::20]) by crow.ecs.soton.ac.uk (crow.ecs.soton.ac.uk = [2001:630:d0:f110::25b]) envelope-from = <nanog-bounces+tjc=3Decs.soton.ac.uk@nanog.org> with ESMTP id = m673381995435214jA ret-id none; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 03:03:19 +0100 Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=3Ds0.nanog.org) by = s0.nanog.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from = <nanog-bounces@nanog.org>) id 1OWgRQ-000HxK-8m; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 = 02:02:20 +0000 Received: from outgoing03.lava.net = ([2001:1888:0:1:202:b3ff:fe1d:6b98]) by s0.nanog.org with esmtp (Exim = 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <tony@lava.net>) id 1OWgPi-000G1S-Si for = nanog@nanog.org; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 02:00:35 +0000
One other thing I also notice is that there is a high correlation between use of TLS and IPv6, I guess a lot of people with IPv6 clue also enable TLS: Received: from s0.nanog.org (s0.nanog.org [IPv6:2001:48a8:6880:95::20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1B959F for <swmike@swm.pp.se>; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:10:41 +0200 (CEST) -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se