At 19:50 -0600 4/8/03, Vernon Schryver wrote:
An important but not hard part of the job is letting people at the
source of the message diagnose the problem. People who've spent years
trying to guess why a distant machine run by idiots who can't look at
their own logs or do their own tests is intermittently rejecting mail
have more sympathy for the current, ad hoc, brute force, bandwidth
wasting, theoretically spammer exploitable scheme.
Message body has nothing to do with this.
The hard part is getting a few 1,000,000 SMTP servers to install your
MTA patches and a few 100,000,000 people to install your new MUAs,
and to deal with the transition.
That is not necessary. Just change the default behavior of sendmail
and when the next root exploit is found and everybody is forced to upgrade
within 24 hours, it'll be largely deployed.
My point is that this mailing list, like most anti-spam efforts, has
an awful lot of sidewalk supervising.
Ahhh no, but you've burned a lot of bytes building this strawman.
It seems the point on which we disagree is whether there is some
merit to regenerating entire new messages that contain full message
bodies.
I believe there is not, in most if not all cases, a compelling argument
for continuing the practice of sending back entire messages at the
application level.
Seriously, really, how common is the scenario you describe, and by what
other means would the correspondents have already solved the problem out \
of band?
The number of messages that are _not delivered_, and _not discernable by
the sender_ looking at everything but the body... this can't possibly be
a significant fraction of all e-mail.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg