RE: [Asrg] SHOULD filtering be done as part of SMTP transaction
"Jon Kyme" <jrk@merseymail.com> Thu, 22 May 2003 06:39 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02158 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 May 2003 02:39:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4M66MT26828 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 22 May 2003 02:06:22 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4M66LB26821 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 May 2003 02:06:21 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02148; Thu, 22 May 2003 02:38:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19IjhY-00063M-00; Thu, 22 May 2003 02:37:20 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19IjhX-00063J-00; Thu, 22 May 2003 02:37:19 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4M5tWB23675; Thu, 22 May 2003 01:55:32 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4M5saB23627 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 May 2003 01:54:36 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA01973 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 May 2003 02:26:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19IjWB-0005is-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 22 May 2003 02:25:35 -0400
Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19IjWB-0005ip-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 22 May 2003 02:25:35 -0400
Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19IjLJ-0002jx-00; Thu, 22 May 2003 07:14:21 +0100
Subject: RE: [Asrg] SHOULD filtering be done as part of SMTP transaction
To: Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
From: Jon Kyme <jrk@merseymail.com>
Cc: ASRG <asrg@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.5]
X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 193.195.0.102
Message-Id: <E19IjLJ-0002jx-00@argon.connect.org.uk>
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 07:14:21 +0100
> > On May 21, 2003 at 08:59 jrk@merseymail.com (Jon Kyme) wrote: > > I think that now we're all in agreement that > > (a) spam filtering should be per-user > > (b) we should reject in SMTP where possible > > > Plus or minus begging the use of the conditional "should" I'm not > necessarily in agreement. > > Unfortunately, spam is often (nearly) indistinguishable from a > denial-of-service attack. > > As I've reported here previously I've had the same spam spewing > simultaneously from over 200 different IP addresses. > I don't believe that an acceptance that filtering should best be per-user doesn't preclude administrators taking steps to preserve their systems in the face of "attack". -- _______________________________________________ Asrg mailing list Asrg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg