Re: [Asrg] Some data on the validity of MAIL FROM addresses

"Jon Kyme" <jrk@merseymail.com> Tue, 20 May 2003 20:09 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 QAA28547 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2003 16:09:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4KJZYw29684 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 20 May 2003 15:35:34 -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 h4KJZYB29681 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2003 15:35:34 -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 QAA28532; Tue, 20 May 2003 16:08:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19IDOG-0000Mj-00; Tue, 20 May 2003 16:07:16 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19IDOF-0000Mg-00; Tue, 20 May 2003 16:07:15 -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 h4KJTAB29371; Tue, 20 May 2003 15:29:10 -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 h4KJS6B29334 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2003 15:28:06 -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 QAA28400 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2003 16:01:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19IDH3-0000K6-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 20 May 2003 15:59:49 -0400
Received: from argon.connect.org.uk ([193.110.243.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19IDH2-0000K3-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 20 May 2003 15:59:48 -0400
Received: from mmail by argon.connect.org.uk with local (connectmail/exim) id 19IDIJ-0002Gl-00; Tue, 20 May 2003 21:01:07 +0100
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305201142590.1499-100000@entropy.galcit.caltech.edu>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Some data on the validity of MAIL FROM addresses
To: Michael Rubel <asrg@mikerubel.org>
From: Jon Kyme <jrk@merseymail.com>
Cc: ASRG <asrg@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: [ConnectMail 3.5.5]
X-connectmail-Originating-IP: 193.195.0.101
Message-Id: <E19IDIJ-0002Gl-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: Tue, 20 May 2003 21:01:07 +0100

> > 
> > Even thought it might be recommended to do processing in real-time, in 
> > practice many systems do not and will not. We must be take that into
> account.
> 

Of course we must. We shouldn't assume Best Practice to be done by others.
Best Practice is what we should try to do ourselves.


> 
> I agree with Yakov, and would even go further.  I think smtp-session
> reject is falling out of favor and will eventually disappear.
>

Your evidence ? For goodness sake, *hotmail* do it. Of course they may be
going to stop at any minute - in which case I'll look silly.
 
> There are strong reasons to prefer accept-then-bounce or even filter to 
> reject.
> 
> (1) Reject gives feedback about your system to would-be bad
>     guys--including dictionary spammers--in a much faster and more 
>     reliable way.  Sysadmins rightly want to give out as little 
>     information as possible, because that's standard practice anywhere
>     security is involved.

This is a variation of security through obscurity. And we know how well
that works.

> 
> (2) Reject is a less flexible mechanism.  Accept-then-bounce or filter 
>     allows recipients to work around certain obselete or overzealous
>     systems.

How so?

> 
> (3) Senders have come to understand that messages get incorrectly
>     filtered as spam sometimes; they no longer expect to recieve an
>     immediate rejection if there is a problem delivering a message.
> 

Which senders no longer expect this? All of them? You've asked them all?

> Like ident, smtp-reject has some usefulness inside private networks, but
> one shouldn't expect to see it widely used on the public Internet.
> 

Why compare this to ident? What's the point? And who says I shouldn't
expect Best Practice on the public Internet (while being prepared for
less).


If we really think that BCP30 is so hopelessly outdated, wouldn't this be a
good place to start rewriting it.

Jon (tired) Kyme






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