On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 04:13:36PM +0100, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 02:04:31PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
My opinion is that we should recommend exactly the opposite - that
sites should always reject mail before DATA if they have enough
information to do that. The impact of sucking down all messages just to
do a virus is considerable. And error reporting is much more reliable
if the error indication is returned in response to SMTP MAIL or RCPT
than if it is returned as a bounced mail message.
I know that your opinion is quite common, but it seems that my latest
mails on the issue, with all my wise words:-), have not been sent,
so I will send them again.
OK, found out that you cited the very mail, so I will not send them
again. But what do you say to my analyses that looking at the mail body
for virus would *reduce* the traffic, and also the bogus error mail?
Do you agree?
To me, the model is a bit like what the economists call game theory,
that if you sacrifice some of your own ressources initially, you can
actually get a better result overall for the society, and actually also