North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity (was Re:Clueless anti-virus )
----- Original Message ----- From: "Geo." <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 9:57 AM
Subject: RE: SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity (was Re:Clueless anti-virus )
Standardizing the DSN is an exercise in futility. Mainly because it still requires the message to pass through your outbound pipe and into my inbound pipe, hit my server port where my server starts processing that traffic. What has been accomplished here? Providing me a mechanism to block the notification if it's for a virus? For systems that are sending out notifications with forged addresses, this becomes UBE and provisions are already in place in the mta via access or in worst cases, the border firewall or even the border router for dealing with the originating network itself.additional steps to also contain _all_ upstream activity within the sameWhile AV scanning may be done during the session, it would also require
If a system is incapable of determining the validity of the sender address, then that address should not be getting a DSN from any system regarding a virus, trojan or other malware. One can say, well *this* system is going into place or *that* system is in place at these locations, but it's simply not good enough. It's not standardized. There is currently no 100% tried and true method of dealing with this that is *standard* through out the net. So, the next best thing is to simply not send the DSN for viri / trojan infection at all.
What was the quote from Wargames? Oh yes, "The only winning move is not to play".