[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Site policy vs. HELO

2005-03-08 12:51:34

On Tue March 8 2005 11:36, Hector Santos, a.k.a. 
<winserver(_dot_)support(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com> wrote:

Over the pass year and a half, we have proved that by increasing the level
of SMTP compliancy required by senders, you can address an extremely high
rejection rate with a very low to non-existence false positives.   100%
based on SMTP compliancy.

Perhaps you're not paying attention to the false positives:

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

    SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT 
    host []: 550 Return Path not verifiable.

------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------

Return-path: <blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> 

Now consider for a moment how silly that transaction was:
o Everything from the client side was 100% SMTP compliant
o The return code claiming "Return Path not verifiable" had the
  predictable result of sending a notice (excerpts above) to
  precisely that path which is (incorrectly) claimed to be
  "not verifiable"

Most modern SMTP systems are compliant and legitimate senders are indeed

As the case above...
So I propose that we take a step back and look at RFC 2821 and discuss what
areas need to change to provide SMTP compliancy enforcement at the first
step towards addressing the spam problem.

RFCs 821 (as amended by RFC 1123 and other RFCs) and 2821 *define*
SMTP compliance requirements.  This "SMTP compliancy" is a red
I hope I am not off based

They say that hope springs eternal...

Someone needs to get a hold of the ball and begin making changes to RFC

Somebody needs to pay more attention to unwarranted rejection
of legitimate mail.

I predict that the courtesy copy of this message will also
bounce for no good reason.

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