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 (wasRe:Clueless anti-virus )
----- Original Message ----- From: "Douglas Otis" <[email protected]>
To: "Todd Vierling" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Geo." <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 11:03 AM
Subject: RE: SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity (wasRe:Clueless anti-virus )
It's only a solution if it's available for all accepted MTA's that currently exist. According to MIPA, the only currently available BATV "equipped" mta's are Exim and NetQmail. I'll admit that I'm not up to par on the BATV project but damn, if you can't find information on it through a google search, or you find very limited information on it, then how can you say that it's ready for implementation now? Also, regardless of it's status, why should I have to redo my entire mail system to deploy BATV because others can't play nice on the net?On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 11:16 -0500, Todd Vierling wrote:On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Geo. wrote:
With BATV, the slogan could be a quote from Socrates "Know thyself." With BATV, you should stop blaming others for _your_ inability to deal with a DSN problem. Calling DSNs UBE is not a solution, although traffic from AV applications seems to be approaching that definition. If it has a null return-path, that is all you should need.
When DSN's become autogenerated by systems that are not MTA's then those messages should no longer be considered DSNs should they.-Doug
My "inability" to deal with a DSN problem? Please allow me to assure you that I have various methods of dealing with bogus DSN's within my network infrastructure. Regardless of that, why should I have to accept traffic not destined for my network? That is, afterall, what is happening when a DSN is sent to a forged originating address is it not? Truth of the matter is that I don't have to accept it at all. Your belief that I have the inability to deal with the problem is a misconception on your part. One has various methods in place already to deal with the problem at a very basic level. One can merely filter traffic at their upstream provider, place restrictions on their local MTA, firewall appliance or router. Those of us that see that DSN's are becoming UBE are trying to get the issue resolved before it comes to that. It will either happen or filters will go live. It's just that simple.