North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was Re: Sober)
On Dec 7, 2005, at 1:35 PM, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
DO> Not all email is rejected within the SMTP session. You are changing
Being refused by the intended recipient would be the cause for the DSN.
DO> furthermore a DSN could be desired even for cases where an authorization
This assumes all messages are rejected within the SMTP session.
DO> scheme fails. Why create corner cases?You mean bounce-address? A From address often has nothing to do with where a message originated.
DO> DomainKeys and Sender-ID can not validate the bounce-address or the DSN.SPF has _nothing_ to do with the From address.
Once again, not _all_ messages are rejected within the SMTP session. False positives are not 0%. To ensure the integrity of email delivery, not including message content and using a null bounce- address should be the recommended practice at the initial recipient. If you do not want to see DSNs with spoofed bounce-addresses, employ BATV at _your_ end should be the recommended practice. You would not need to insist that anything special be done at millions of other locations.