Re: [Asrg] Re: bounces, and anit-spam principles
2007-01-23 10:00:59
On Jan 22, 2007, at 11:25 PM, David Nicol wrote:
On 1/22/07, Dan Oetting <dan_oetting(_at_)qwest(_dot_)net> wrote:
That works if you don't mind taking the long route. I was thinking of
a more direct path of sending a specific response code in the SMTP
transaction. A really smart smarthost might be able to then fix the
problem before the site gets blacklisted.
-- Dan Oetting
I for one caught that drift. It wouldn't need to be its own ESMTP
keyword,
just some specific text following the 550 rejected on policy
grounds. Perhaps
the word "spam."
So, a conformant sending domain, on seeing a /^550 .+spam/i
response, would
do what exactly? Log the fact? Page a sysadmin?
Just like most blacklists wouldn't list a site for a single email
hitting a spamtrap, the host would not be expected to take action
against a user for sending the single email unless there were
extenuating circumstances. If the host is on probation or a gray list
for currently spamming it may be necessary to throttle the user to
prevent escalation to a blacklist.
You don't want to reveal the spamtrap address to the user. If the
users account has been taken over by a spammer it could wash the
address from its lists and then you loose that method of identifying
the spamers next identity. These traps should not be used for
blacklisting because if they are identified by the spammers they
could be abused to generate false listings.
The spamtraps should only be revealed between cooperating ISPs. And
each trap should only reveal itself to a fraction of the connecting
hosts to keep from revealing all the traps to a rogue ISP that joins
the group. The response code given to reveal the trap should be an
accept code (2xx) so that the text is not passed to the user by
default if the smarthost MTA is non-conforming.
-- Dan Oetting
(sent to the list this time)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- [Asrg] Re: bounces, and anit-spam principles, gep2
- Re: [Asrg] Re: bounces, and anit-spam principles, Steve Atkins
- Re: [Asrg] Re: bounces, and anit-spam principles, Dan Oetting
- Re: [Asrg] Re: bounces, and anit-spam principles, Steve Atkins
- Re: [Asrg] Re: bounces, and anit-spam principles, Dan Oetting
- Re: [Asrg] Re: bounces, and anit-spam principles, David Nicol
- Re: [Asrg] Re: bounces, and anit-spam principles, Peter J. Holzer
- Re: [Asrg] Re: bounces, and anit-spam principles, Danny Angus
- Re: [Asrg] Re: bounces, and anit-spam principles,
Dan Oetting <=
Re: [Asrg] Re: bounces, and anit-spam principles, Tony Finch
Re: [Asrg] Re: bounces, and anit-spam principles, Dave Crocker
|
|
|