[Top] [All Lists]

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

2004-03-26 10:59:09

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 02:45:52PM +0100, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

bz writes:
If you want to give an error message to the party who actually sent 
you the  e-mail you need to know the real 'reverse path'. This may 
have nothing to do with the SMTP client the message was receive from.

You're assuming that there _is_ a reverse-path for the sending party. 
For a lot of mail here isn't, particularly the sort of mail most people 
want to reject (spam and virii).

But there is a TCP connection to the sending SMTP client. That TCP 
connection is real and dependable. An SMTP server can use that TCP 
connection to give an error message, and it will _not_ be giving that 
error message to some unfortunate bystander.

Well, in some cases it *will* namely when some MTA has accepted a
message and it sending it forward on behalf of some .forward or mail
list scheme. Maybe that is bad practice, but it happens all the time.

I think we should try to list existing practice, with a number of
frequent scenarios, and then give some advice in each case on how the
MTA could/should handle this.

best regards