- Previous message: Greg A. Woods: "Re: Blocking mail from=<>"
- Maybe in reply to: /dev/rob0: "Re: Blocking mail from=<>"
- Next in thread: mouss: "Re: Blocking mail from=<>"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Greg A. Woods (no email)
Date: Thu Mar 03 2005 - 17:27:34 EST
[ On Thursday, March 3, 2005 at 07:29:03 (-0800), Robin Lynn Frank wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Blocking mail from=<>
>
> You're a fine one to talk about wasting anything. I seem to recall that
> an email I once sent you, consisting of a single sentence under 10 words
> was rejected with reject text 108 words in length.
Sending a detailed reject message is not an abuse of the SMTP protocol,
nor is it any kind of "waste".
> Current conditions render any presumption of innocence, when it comes to
> incoming email, invalid.
I did not say all incoming mail had to be presumed innocent -- quite the
contrary as I agree it is not.
Maybe if my idea of using a web of trust between well known mail servers
to authenticate the incoming connection was widely enough deployed then
incoming transactions from those trusted peers could be presumed a bit
more innocent than the rest, but that's the only way I can see to assign
any degree of trust whatsoever to any content in any incoming SMTP
transaction (i.e. before it's received and accepted).
> Accept and quarantine is a huge waste of
> resources.
That's only one of many possible ways to deal with the problem.
At least the resources such an approach waste are _only_ those of the
person responsible for making that choice.
-- Greg A. Woods H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <> Planix, Inc. <> Secrets of the Weird <>
|
|
|