ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Do the must 'bounce' rules need to be relaxed for virus infec ted messages?

2004-03-25 12:37:25
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:24:59 PST, Daryl Odnert said:

That question is beyond the scope of this discussion.  :-)

I wish it was...

Seriously, I think that's one of those decisions that should be considered a
local policy matter.  The SMTP protocol should not attempt to provide
guidance on such matters.  I think the goal of the proposal is simply to
create some wiggle room in the SMTP protocol to allow some messages to be
silently dropped, without prescribing exactly when such an action is or is
not appropriate.

Given the number of vendors and ISPs that I've seen doing very stupid things
even when the RFCs *didn't* provide wiggle room, I don't think it's safe to
leave it a 'local policy matter' unless we provide lots of discussion and
annotated examples with SHOULD and SHOULD NOT attached.

Just because my site can do this sort of thing and not hose itself up doesn't
make it generally safe, any more than if I were a race car driver I could trust
all the other bozos on the interstate on the way home....

I can think of more than one large provider who is evil enough to define "local
policy" as "we're going to make meaningful bounces an option only available to
our paying customers and affiliates".  And I mean "wag the dog" large here....

Attachment: pgpkAoLYJ9Vff.pgp
Description: PGP signature