From: Greg A. Woods (woodsweird.com)
Date: Thu Mar 03 2005 - 16:27:34 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ 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 <woodsrobohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woodsplanix.com> Secrets of the Weird <woodsweird.com>

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]