ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] Ban the bounce; improved challenge-response systems

2003-04-06 14:08:22
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>

Well I am not too intereted in the junk bounces your site sends out.

It is extremely unlikely that my SMTP server has ever sent you anything
that might be called a bounce.  The continuing messages with envelope
Mail_From values of pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com are not "bounced" at 
192.188.61.3,
but rejected during the SMTP transaction.  The only bits that are sent
from 192.188.61.3 toward Verisign for those messages are SMTP status
values, and only during those unwanted SMTP transactions.

However, it is likely that peacock.verisign.com [65.205.251.73] has
been generating bounces or messages that people who are unfamiliar
with the technical nature of email might misunderstand as having come
from 192.188.61.3. 

If peacock.verisign.com is one of my systems, please let me know. 
A line from the access_DB used at 192.188.61.3 should be copied to it
to push the generation of those objectionable bounces back to
mou1wnexc02.verisign.com.


   ....


]  From: Jim Youll <jim(_at_)media(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu>

] ...
]  Is it actually useful to bounce? this seems to be the only reason a bounce
] would be appropriated for spamming... yet a copy of the original message seems
]  to not really be all that useful. Delivery information, yes, but _not_ the
]  body.
] 
]  I see the value of an error-response, but bouncing the whole thing does seem
]  to be a bit of a relic.

That idea seems to be common to some challenge/response systems.  Have
you ever received a message from someone that said only "yes," "go
ahead," or something similar, but not been able to devine the context?

An error indication or a challenge without the corresponding mail
message is often useless.  If you receive a note saying that message
failed or needs a response to a challenge, how do you know which
message is at issue, or even that you sent a message and that the
challenge or error indication is not a spammer trick?  If you've sent
more than one or two messages that might have passed near the system
that originated the challenge or error indication, what do you do?

What if there is no obvious connection between any of the messages you've
sent within the last week or two and the system issuing the challenge
or the error indication?  This can happen if you don't know everything
there is to know about how mail is routed for all of your correspondents.

No, even if keep good logs of outgoing mail and understand them well
enough to can search them, Message-ID headers in your outgoing mail
are unlikely to be useful.  Message-IDs are often added by MTAs (or MSAs)
instead of MUAs and so won't be in your personal mail logs.  Then
there are the MTAs such as qmail that do not always add Message-IDs.


Vernon Schryver    vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>