186810Re: Possible SPAM mitigation trick
- Nov 23, 2005Covington, Chris wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 02:23:39AM +0100, mouss wrote:It's important to note that both methods exploit the lack of
>>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.
RFC-compliant behavior common to malware, albeit using completely
different approaches. Furthermore, they attempt to do it in an
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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>