RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework

Scott Nelson <scott@spamwolf.com> Sat, 07 June 2003 18:25 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 OAA17746 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:25:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h57IOib18221 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:24:44 -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 h57IOiB18218 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:24:44 -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 OAA17732; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:24:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OiKw-0004z2-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 14:22:42 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OiKw-0004yz-00; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 14:22:42 -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 h57IMnB18148; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:22:49 -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 h57ILWB18108 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:21:33 -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 OAA17697 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:21:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OiHr-0004yN-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 14:19:31 -0400
Received: from adsl-66-120-64-133.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([66.120.64.133] helo=magic1.org) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19OiHq-0004yK-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2003 14:19:30 -0400
Message-Id: <aT5vaIe86J8qbrGSE02@x>
To: asrg@ietf.org
From: Scott Nelson <scott@spamwolf.com>
Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R Interworking Framework
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: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 11:21:38 -0700

At 06:24 PM 6/6/03 -1000, Peter Kay wrote:
>I agree, a challenge can be seen as a DSN or a new message. My point is
>that in either case, the MAIL FROM or REPLYTO should be consistent with
>the challenger's email address, otherwise 2 C/R systems will challenge
>each other's challenge.
>

If you're sending a DSN, then the From: header could be your address,
but the MAIL FROM should probably be <>.
That prevents a lot of bad things from happening.

Setting the MAIL FROM to your address means that you could end up
challenging a non-existent address, then the mailer_daemon that
bounces the mail back to you.
If the C/R system was really broken, it could challenge bounces 
from a non-existent address endlessly, but in the normal case
this is only twice as much work as you need to do.


Scott Nelson <scott@spamwolf.com>

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg