Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

186810Re: Possible SPAM mitigation trick

Expand Messages
  • Jorey Bump
    Nov 23, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Covington, Chris wrote:
      > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 02:23:39AM +0100, mouss wrote:
      >
      >>Also here, a spamware that tries second MX won't be blocked. while in GL
      >>it will be deferred.
      >
      > The theory behind GLing is that direct-to-MX clients won't retry, so if
      > they time out at the primary MX or at the lowest-value MX that might be
      > just as effective as tempfailing them.

      It's important to note that both methods exploit the lack of
      RFC-compliant behavior common to malware, albeit using completely
      different approaches. Furthermore, they attempt to do it in an
      RFC-compliant way.

      This is a stated weakness of both methods, because it is possible that
      malware authors will adapt. But, it's arguable that this adaptation
      offers benefits in the long run. If malware writers feel it's worth it
      to obey the RFCs, maybe others will follow suit.

      By gradually becoming a little less liberal in what we accept, the
      pressure will come to bear on administrators and software developers who
      unleash misbehaving mail systems on the rest of the world.
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic