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
> From firstname.lastname@example.org Sat Dec 10 16:56:38 2005 > Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:55:38 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) > From: Todd Vierling <email@example.com> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: Re: SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity > > > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Douglas Otis wrote: > > > BATV will make forged DSNs a thing of the past, irrespective of where a > > recipient list is checked, an AV or SPAM filter is added, etc. > > Stop plugging a recipient-side cost-shift scheme that you're directly > involved with as some sort of panacea. BATV has benefits, as do other > schemes, but you're still fixated on it as being the end-all, be-all of > forgery prevention -- by making third parties do the dirty work and letting > the instigators off the hook. > > By putting the costs on the shoulders of third parties, you're putting > yourself squarely on the side of the spewing hosts, and being as ignorant as > the admins running the anti-malware products on those hosts. For shame. > I recommend to all a review of the "Rules of Spam". Rule #1, in particular. Specifically the "Lexical Contradiciton" and "Sharp's Corollary". We seem to have yet another example for the 'rules-keeper's refrain'. *sigh* Considering the source of _this_ demonstration, one can only despair -- what possible chance is there for things to 'get better', when one of the putatively 'good guys' espouses that kind of double-think?