Re: Spam Filter
- From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 07:46:54 -0500
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 03:11, jdow wrote:
Rejecting the mail during the *SMTP* transaction *never* involves any
hosts or addresses mentioned in the message headers. It is a TCP
protocol-level thing only involving the peers: the sending host and
your receiving host. It's impossible to involve a third party.
Of course, that was the point Paul was making.
That is, of course, the right way to do it. But after being on the
receiving end of a joe-job in the past I am a little "sensitive" to
the issue. And SOME people, probably not Paul on second thought (sorry
it was not first thought, Paul), are a little careless with regards
to "reject" and "bounce".
If the mail has already been forwarded through a normal
relay, it doesn't matter whether the next hop accepts and
generates a bounce or it rejects with a 5xx status. The
rejection will force any standards-conforming mailer to
generate a bounce back to the sender - even if the sender
address was forged. The only difference is that the
reject saves your own machine the trouble of constructing
and trying to return the bounce message. A lot of
spam-spewing software sends directly though and a
rejection is the end of it.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
- References:
- Spam Filter
- From: Samatason Ltd
- Re: Spam Filter
- From: Paul Howarth
- Re: Spam Filter
- From: jdow
- Re: Spam Filter
- From: Garry T. Williams
- Re: Spam Filter
- From: jdow
- Spam Filter
- Prev by Date: Re: dvd::rip anyone got it working under FC5?[Scanned]
- Next by Date: Re: Mass Emailing for Report Generation
- Previous by thread: Re: Spam Filter
- Next by thread: Re: Spam Filter
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|