Matthew Elvey wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2004 11:40:48 +0100, "Matt Sergeant"
<msergeant(_at_)messagelabs(_dot_)com> said:
3.1. No Automated Probes [Scanning or Probes? - inconsistent].
Scanning in response to an attempt to email a system for the first
time seems reasonable to me.
And yet there is a lot of disagreement about this (see multiple
discussions about RR doing this).
Then the BCP, IMO, shouldn't be that it not be done.
Perhaps the BCP could be narrowed.
I'll review the RR discussions. I recall discussion of broken Notes
installs...
RR took the position that "if you expect us to accept your email, you
shouldn't quibble about us making sure that your system is secure".
These were "email in hand" scans, not unprovoked. Most "vulnerability"
blacklists are at least "email in hand". I can't think of anybody doing
unprovoked scanning now.
I think the wording is poor. It should be "No unprovoked scanning or
probing". Where "mere existance" shouldn't be considered sufficient
provocation ;-)
Mebe we should be much more specific and decide whether we want to say
"email in hand" or "spam in hand" (from this IP).
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg