On Monday, August 30, 2004 7:07 PM, mazieres(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
Okay, so basically is it the case that Sender ID (in its
present form) isn't designed to help with these kinds of
viruses and virus notifiers? At this point, is there any
possible action the MARID group could take that would allow
more intelligent virus rejection? I care a lot about this
problem, and was hoping the outcome of this working group could help.
I think Sender ID will help with viruses, though perhaps not in the way
you're suggesting. As I understand it, many viruses today are
tranmitted from infected zombie machines, often home computers connected
via cable modem or DSL lines. The IP addresses of these home computers
will not likely be listed by their owning ISPs as legitimate sources of
outbound e-mail. Thus a receiver performing the Sender ID check should
be able to detect "foul play" and reject the message, presumably with a
5xx type return code rather than by sending an actual bounce message.
Not sure I understand this question. However, when an MTA
sends a DSN
with MAIL FROM <>, the PRA would typically be something like
of the SUBMITTER spec.
Sorry, my question was about receiving, not sending bounces.
Let me elaborate. Suppose I have two email addresses:
Because of the number of bounces I get from viruses, the
address me(_at_)myschool(_dot_)edu does not accept DSNs. Therefore, I
always use me-bounces-2004(_at_)myschool(_dot_)edu as the envelope sender.
So far so good. The next question is which address I should
use as the PRA. If I don't do anything, the PRA will be
me(_at_)myschool(_dot_)edu, which I would probably prefer. However,
given that that address refuses DSNs, the question is whether
there would be grounds for listing me in the rfc-ignorant RBL:
Thanks for clarifying. Bounces go to the return-path address, not to
the PRA. If you want bounces to go to a specific address you need to
set the MAIL FROM address to the desired address when you send mail.