That depends. The "filter AAAA on ipv4" option is quite new in bind 9, and probably not available on the majority of DNS installations out there.
My guess is that a majority of ISPs will gladly send IPv4 clients the AAAA records. Which, in my opinion, is a good thing. Just because the query goes through IPv4 doesn't necessarily mean a client doesn't have IPv6.

Why is this "insightful"? By the time the spam is processed by the trap and is blacklisted, the million e-mails have already been delivered.
The next time the spammer sends e-mail, it will be a different e-mail, so the existing rule won't trigger.

The only real effect this has is adding fat to the spam checkers, making mail delivery slower for everyone. Except the spammer.

Wives are like PCs. If you need one, you need several. And you can always hack someone else's to use.

Right, it is irrelevant for the spammer. He's not using his own resources. Whether he sends e-mail to a million real and a million fake addresses, or to a million real and two million fake ones does not matter.

What's "peak stupid" here is the submitter not understanding how spamming works before posting on it.

Once their OS is told that www.google.com has internet address 2607:f8b0:4009:805::1010, they sure do.
Or once their ISP switches to IPv6.

What's sad is that slashdot.org does not have an AAAA address.
News for whom?
Stuff that what?

That's a Hobson's choice as far as the call goes.
Given that for many of their services, you cannot do them though the web site or e-mail, that's a showstopper. They've pretty much responded with "you have to call us for that" whenever I needed something done and tried to do it online.
If you're disabled or without transportation to get you to an office, that pretty much leaves you with no options at all.

It's basically looking for a needle in a haystack, but for a router, the haystack is a lot smaller than on a full OS.
Any code affecting normal operation speeds would also be easier to spot - additional packet inspection can incur a noticable hit on a device that prides itself on passing packets as quickly as possible and allowing as many simultaneous connections as possible.

A billion dollar security firm won't sign up for a $120 per year service per site to not see the data behind the breach, but to be given an unsubstantiated statement of whether they allegedly are affected or not.

Why would they? That would just be opening up for all kinds of protection rackets.

Could be worse:

- Here, my $120, what's going on with this?
- You're affected. Change your password, goodbye.
- But, hey, my web site doesn't have any passwords, how can it be affected?
- Yes, you're affected, goodbye.

Until they pony up some evidence, this sounds like scam much like the cold callers who tell you you have a virus.

True. Having two left eyes or two right eyes would be awkward.

It reminds me of a televangelist who was a teetotaler. When confronted with Jesus having made wine out of water, his response was "Yes, we know about this, but we do not like it".

Religion can justify or condemn pretty much anything, so the only rational thing to do is to take religion out of the equation. It certainly should not influence our laws.

I don't know whether you speak out of ignorance, stupidity, contrariness or misplaced belief, but the above is a big fucking lie.
There are lots of programmes that makes people not do bad things. They're called preventative measures, and includes programmes like free methadon for heroin addicts, poverty reduction, incentives to hire ex-cons, psychological and psychiatric assistance programmes, and much more. And they do work - crime rates and recidivism goes down.

If you look at things in black and white and think that if it doesn't stop 100% of the crime it's ineffective, you refuse to see the big picture. It doesn't have to. If leads to a measurable improvement, it does reduce the number of crimes committed and suffering victims.
If that isn't your goal, you're part of the problem, not the solution.

Can you even help yourself from doing that?

Prison sentences serve multiple purposes:

- Deterrence.
Studies show that the length and severity of the sentence is only effective up to a certain point. No one will abstain from doing a crime because they risk 40 years in jail instead of 12. In some cases, too harsh mandatory or customary sentencing has a detrimental effect. A good example is child molestation, where the super-long sentencing causes children to not report their parents, because they don't want to see people they love go to jail for the rest of their lives. They endure instead, and become more traumatized. Another example is capital punishment. When that is in place, it is in the interest of a criminal to kill witnesses and police, because it won't make the sentencing any harder, but will make it more likely they get away with it.
Yes, deterrence works. Up to a point. Based on that factor, the sentencing here in the US is far too long for the maximal effect.

- Prevention
While in prison, the opportunity to commit the same crime as arrested for is low. This has an effect when the recidivism risk is high. But the way it is used in the US is not based on statistics, but on fucking feelings. The crimes with the highest recidivism rates get shorter sentencing than the ones with lower recidivism rates. So it's obviously not a main concern. Many other countries split the sentencing between the actual punishment and an additional detainment, which is meant to be for preventative reasons. A few even factor in the risk of recidivism.

- Rehabilitation.
It is in society's best interest that a convicted criminal returns to society as a productive member; the sooner, the better. Most Western countries try to use the time criminals spend incarcerated in preparing them for returning to a normal life, not to "reward" the criminal, but because it greatly reduces recidivism and costs to everyone. In the US, there's pretty much no rehabilitation, and the number of ex-convicts who return to crime is astonishingly high compared to the rest of the world.

- Revenge.
It doesn't undo the crime, and drags those exacting revenge down to the same level as the criminal. It certainly doesn't make the criminal any more inclined to become a happy member of society. Few countries now support this, and almost all that do, do it for religious reasons.

Yes, sentencing is necessary when someone is caught for a crime. But the sentencing needs to be rational, and not based on feelings. And better yet is to reduce the number of people sentenced by reducing the risk of crime before it happens. I know, alien concept, and you won't get your righteous rocks off as much by reading about caught perps.

Sales receipts for out-of-state purchases can be fingerprinted, and compared to use tax declarations. And this has indeed come up too, in a slightly more limited way. At least one state have asked some online retailers to be Bcced on all sales receipts.

Key words like "evaded" and "90mph" may be set up to trigger manual inspection. Bayesian filtering can be used for more than catching spam.

Because you're helping society, not just the individual. By helping the individuals, the amount of crime goes down. Or do you mean that the cost of rehabilitation and prevention means more to you than the children getting molested? Cause that's what you appear to be saying.

One of the large factors in child molestation is paedophilia, which is classified as a clinical perversion, much like necrophilia, zoophilia and others. That's certainly a mental health condition. No-one wakes up one day and says to him/herself "I think I will start lusting after prepubescent children". If that factor can be reduced by offering medical assistance to those who need and want it, without the current stigma, it would lead to a reduction in child molestations. That's the goal.
Other factors can probably be reduced too, including poverty (there is a correlation), repressed sexuality (legalize prostitution), ignorance and superstition (public education), and other treatable medical problems. Any given thing does not have to work on all cases - it's the sum, and how it works on society as a whole that's important.

Did you know that one of the biggest risk factors for becoming a child molester is having been abused as a child? By reducing the number of atrocities happening now, you help break a vicious cycle, and reduce it even more for the next generation.

I see a distinct unwillingness to even consider it, and much less invest money and resources on it. People appear to want to string up molesters and not reduce the risk of people becoming or staying molesters. Just look around in this thread, and you see plenty of examples.