[Top] [All Lists]

Re: blacklisting backscatter

2010-04-10 19:34:47
On 10 Apr 2010, at 14:33, John Leslie wrote:
  What do folks think of

Not for me.  Too much froth from the mouth there, I think.

Disclaimer: I knowingly backscatter, when I can't help it.  My domain started 
life and continues to this day as a catch-all, which makes it hard sometimes 
not to.  I'm still rethinking this seriously, but in the meantime it's not on 
that list and AFAIK never has been.  And even if I used fixed address, my 
mailing lists would for example provide a backscatter source, with forged mail 
or subscription requests, etc.

  (Hopefully we agree that backscatter deserves to be avoided; but
automated blacklisting for backscatter worries me a bit...)


You may be interested to know that qmail, the "Village idiot" of MTAs which is 
pervaded by this problem out of the box, is jerkily progressing through to 
inclusion into Debian Linux.  The technical committee review consensus has 
been, "Fix the backscatter problem, and we'll let it in, pending a month of 
bugs."  See here for the details:

What this seems to say is that the problem is different things to different 
people.  FTR, I'm no qmail fanboy, but people should have that choice.  Some of 
qmail's weird behaviour is good and desirable to others, and it's a question of 
who's priorities are under consideration as to whether or not the software is 
suitable.  The proponents of backscatter of course argue that it discloses less 
about valid recipients, when the recipient address isn't immediately rejected 
if unknown.


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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