Re: Rejecting viruses the Right Way[tm]
From: Steve Lamb (grey_at_dmiyu.org)
Date: 02/09/04
- Previous message: Colin Watson: "non-us/security down again"
- In reply to: Derrick 'dman' Hudson: "Re: Rejecting viruses the Right Way[tm]"
- Next in thread: Kjetil Kjernsmo: "Re: Rejecting viruses the Right Way[tm]"
- Reply: Kjetil Kjernsmo: "Re: Rejecting viruses the Right Way[tm]"
- Reply: Edward J. Shornock: "Re: Rejecting viruses the Right Way[tm]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:52:06 -0800 To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> If a message is either rejected (during the SMTP dialog) or bounced
> (after accepting and queueing the message) then the same innocent
> third party receives some junk mail.[1] The difference is only in
> which server is sending the bounce message.
The presumption being, of course, that the other side is a real MTA and
not the virus/worm itself. Rejecting is acceptable as the onus is on the
other side on what to do. You're not generating the bounce. If it is a
virus/worm then it isn't likely to generate a bounce. If it is an MTA then
they had best get their act together and not propigate viruses.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
- Previous message: Colin Watson: "non-us/security down again"
- In reply to: Derrick 'dman' Hudson: "Re: Rejecting viruses the Right Way[tm]"
- Next in thread: Kjetil Kjernsmo: "Re: Rejecting viruses the Right Way[tm]"
- Reply: Kjetil Kjernsmo: "Re: Rejecting viruses the Right Way[tm]"
- Reply: Edward J. Shornock: "Re: Rejecting viruses the Right Way[tm]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|