ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] Re: More e-mail oddities; SPF thoughts

2006-02-06 18:38:26

On Feb 6, 2006, at 11:25 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:


| If an SMTP server has accepted the task of relaying the mail
| and later finds that the destination is incorrect or that the
| mail cannot be delivered for some other reason, then it MUST
| construct an "undeliverable mail" notification message and
| send it to the originator of the undeliverable mail (as
| indicated by the reverse-path).

And yes, I think we must keep this MUST as is, and therefore we can't keep 1123 5.3.6(a) as is, in a world with forged "reverse paths" everywhere this causes havoc for innocent bystanders.

Replacing the return-path in every case when modifying recipients is rather complex. In the event of auto-responses with a return-path, messages sent to this new return-path will require that the recipient be modified to that of the original return-path, and the current return-path be changed as well. It would seem not having the ability to copy the return-path when changing RCPT TO parameters makes for a high level of complexity.

This unfortunate MTA now needs to track modified return-paths going both directions. The number of these addresses tracked would not scale like that of a one-person list-server. There are not subscriptions constraining the range of addresses being handled. This auto-response scenario often represents a fair amount of traffic. Of course, this assumes that the return-path can be qualified before being processed. Assume a EHLO verification is within the domain of the return-path. When it is not, a forward lookup of a PTR record could return a list of acceptable EHLOs for this return-path. This verifies both the EHLO, and, by adding one more lookup in the odd case, the return-path is validated as well.

This return-path replacement could be accomplished using a compressed/ encrypted return-path, a nested/signed return-path embedded within the new local-part, or a local-part as a randomized index into a table of original return-paths. A table index approach allows determinant sized local-parts. The nested/signed return-path requires syntactical conventions be adopted for this to be beneficial. While table entries could be purged after a period of inactivity, the size of this table could grow to be extremely large and would need to be a shared resource within the domain making this a security problem at least. The compressed/encrypted or nested/ signed schemes could overflow the local-part capacity, although this problem is not likely. The compressed/encrypted approach would likely be the fastest technique.

-Doug

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