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)
DO> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 14:15:00 -0800 DO> From: Douglas Otis DO> > Perhaps DSNs should be sent to the original recipient, not the purported DO> > sender. RFC-compliant? No. Ridiculous? Less so than pestering a DO> > random third party. Let the intended recipient communicate OOB or DO> > manually if needed. DO> DO> Being refused by the intended recipient would be the cause for the DSN. Fine. But where to send it? Certainly not to a random address. DO> > DO> furthermore a DSN could be desired even for cases where an DO> > authorization DO> > DO> > When auth fails, one knows *right then* c/o an SMTP reject. No bounce DO> > is necessary. DO> DO> This assumes all messages are rejected within the SMTP session. Perhaps we're examining different "authorization" cases. Maybe my mindset of "SMTP auth" is too narrow for your intended scope. DO> > DO> scheme fails. Why create corner cases? DO> > DO> > The corner case is that a virus _might_ actually have a realistic "From" DO> > address. :-) DO> DO> You mean bounce-address? A From address often has nothing to do with where DO> a message originated. DO> DO> SPF has _nothing_ to do with the From address. Errrr, "return-path". Freudian slip dealing with some site local experiments... "from" is not as accurate as "return-path", but it's far from (no pun intended) useless. DO> Once again, not _all_ messages are rejected within the SMTP session. False Of course not. DO> positives are not 0%. To ensure the integrity of email delivery, not DO> including message content and using a null bounce-address should be the DO> recommended practice at the initial recipient. If you do not want to see DO> DSNs with spoofed bounce-addresses, employ BATV at _your_ end should be the DO> recommended practice. You would not need to insist that anything special be DO> done at millions of other locations. Oh well. I guess I've pretty much given up on pre-body filtering... so I suppose it would be too idyllic to expect anything different with DSNs. Hmmmm. BATV-triggered bounces. Virus triggers forged bounce which in turn triggers "your DSN was misguided" bounce. Perhaps the bandwidth growth of the '90s will continue. ;-) Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: [email protected] -*- [email protected] -*- [email protected] Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.