From: Greg A. Woods (no email)
Date: Tue Oct 01 2002 - 12:26:12 EDT
[ On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 at 08:59:47 (+0100), Edward Wildgoose wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: Should we "reject", ie 5xx virus's
>
> Perhaps this kind of behaviour is also easier to code into legal
> documents as well. Perhaps it might even skirt the limits of what is
> "filtering" if you are completely rejecting the mail. (Arguably this
> is *slightly* different to accepting the mail and then witholding it
> from the user, or modifying it to remove the virus...?)
[[ FYI your paragraphs are un-formatted, making your e-mail hard to read
without manual re-formatting.... ]]
Rejecting a message outright at the SMTP level, for any reason, is
definitely not "filtering" per se. It causes a bounce (assuming the
sender's system is properly interoperable with other standards based
SMTP implementations, and will thus allow any so-called "legitimate"
e-mail to be dealt with appropriately by its human sener. (This of
course assumes that any intermediate MTA will either have authenticated
the sender address, or will have itself rejected the message first.)
Accepting a message unconditionally and then attempting to deal with it
causes no end of problems, technically and legally speaking. For
example with plain SMTP it is impossible to securely authenticate the
sender address if the client is untrusted or if the client's connection
is traversing an untrusted network.
-- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098; <>; <> Planix, Inc. <>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <> - To unsubscribe, send mail to with content (not subject): unsubscribe postfix-users
|
|
|