[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Do the must 'bounce' rules need to be relaxed for virus.

2004-03-23 17:29:51

daryl(_dot_)odnert(_at_)tumbleweed(_dot_)com said:

'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. 

There are many products that do exactly this today.  I know because I've
helped to build one that my employer is selling.  For
example, you can configure the server to drop the message (and not
notify the sender) if the message is virus infected.

My point is, if you're going to change the SMTP protocol standard to
admit that servers may be performing some kind of post-acceptance
analysis of the message, you shouldn't assume that the analysis is
limited to information available on the SMTP envelope.

I agree that the content may help one determine if the header is bogus. 
Such examination should be allowed.

However, I don't think that the wording should allow silent censorship,
just because the message content is 'malicous or shows a deceitful

The important idea is that IF a bounce would not go to the party that
originated the message, then no bounce should be sent especially
if there is an intent to damage an unsuspecting target by the bounce. 


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


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>