Re: [Exim] Re: Bagle, unqualified HELO, time delays

Pàgina inicial
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Autor: Giuliano Gavazzi
Data:  
A: exim-users
Assumpte: Re: [Exim] Re: Bagle, unqualified HELO, time delays
At 11:23 am +0000 2004/03/05, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:05:02AM -0800, Fred Viles wrote:
>>  On 4 Mar 2004 at 9:52, James P. Roberts wrote about
>>  | Would it make sense to apply a 30 second-ish delay to every incoming
>>  | connection, simply to weed out the virii?  Since any legit MTA
>>should accept
>                                        ^^^^^ viruses
>>  | such a delay without incident, and most virii engines would give up.
>                                             ^^^^^ virus
>>  No, I think that would be very anti-social behavior.  Imagine if
>>  everyone did it - what would happen to the Internet's email
>>  infrastructure?

>
>I think you misunderstand the fundamental point of SMTP and unreliable
>connections.
>
>I don't believe it to be anti-social behaviour, and believe in causing
>deliberate command-response penalties based on host-history and current
>behaviour. I am quite happy for others to do the same to hosts that I
>run.


You have cut out the rest of his though that went like:

At 10:05 am -0800 2004/03/04, Fred Viles wrote:
>IMO, artificial delays should be introduced into the SMTP session
>*only* if there is already good reason to suspect that the sender is
>not legitimate. Then the benefit outweighs the infrastructure cost
>(IMHO).


so he appears to agree with your last paragraph above.

you also wrote:

>The point is that the people it seriously impacts are those hosts who are
>sending out large amounts of mail to hosts which implement this kind of
>policy, not the average mail.


his point was against a generalised application of such a delay, that
clearly would affect the average mail. I think his point is valid if
we can consider as anti-social any behaviour that would cause
inconvenience if generalised.

Giuliano