ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: LMAP - Forwarding Comment and Recommended Changes

2003-12-17 15:26:28
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:18:37PM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:36:11PM -0500, Mark E. Mallett wrote:
The missing link in this scenario is the standardized encoding for the 
return-path within a return-path.

[ ... ]
With ENVID, the server owning the ID has to either keep some history,
or has to use an algorithm whereby envids can be verified.  The first
seems to require more implementation/deployment impact than we're
allowed to consider; the second would seem to provide an abuse path.

OTOH I may simply be confused.

I don't think so (confused ;-).

I have always wondered if, with LMAP, abusing sender domains will become
impossible, will spammers fall back to empty envelope senders, aka
mimiking bounces? How will we solve THAT problem? The first time they
started admin started blocking empty envelope senders and if this will
be widely used again I fear a lot more admins will block "bounces".

One answer is the DRIP portion of the LMAP proposal.

DRIP operates on the HELO/EHLO part of the smtp conversation.  And
LMAP advises that a null sender be thought of as 
mailer-daemon(_at_)HELO(_dot_)HOST(_dot_)NAME
(for the purposes of validation).

-- 
 /  \__  | Richard Rognlie / Sultan of Sendmail / Gamerz.NET Lackey
 \__/  \ | http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/ <rrognlie at gamerz.net>
 /  \__/ | 
 \__/    | CAUTION: may contain Mature material......but I doubt it.


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