ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

argh. wrong subject. Should have been Re: Do the must 'bounce' rules need to be relaxed for virus.

2004-03-23 17:08:08

Kicking self while resending and making note to check subject before 
hitting send. ....

 
"Daryl Odnert" <daryl(_dot_)odnert(_at_)tumbleweed(_dot_)com> said:
Perhaps it would be appropriate to add some language to section 3.7,
where the requirement to send an "undeliverable mail"
notification message is described.  I'm thinking about something like
this: 

   An SMTP server MAY decide not to send the "undeliverable mail" 
   notification message when it can determined that the original 
   message had malicious or deceitful intent.  Determination of 
   such intent is beyond the scope of this specification. 

This would be an accurate reflection of what many servers are doing
today. 

Daryl Odnert 
Tumbleweed Communications 
daryl(_dot_)odnert(_at_)tumbleweed(_dot_)com 

Close, indeed, to what many are doing.

Perhaps it should say.
...that the _addressing_ of the original message has malicious or
deceitful intent... 

In other words, when the return path is forged or bogus.

'the original message had malicous or deceitful intent' could be mistaken
for about the CONTENT of the message. I don't think anyone wants to touch
THAT. 



-- 
bz   http://chemistry.lsu.edu/bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+ietf(_at_)chem(_dot_)lsu(_dot_)edu


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • argh. wrong subject. Should have been Re: Do the must 'bounce' rules need to be relaxed for virus., bz <=