On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
> "Verifying" a local part with MTAs that say "fine" to any old rubbish,
> just isn't worth the overhead.
It's really very cheap.
> And some otherwise-bona-fide MTAs won't co-operate, either.
Log analysis and submission to rfc-ignorant (see my recent posts) deals
with the idiots.
> > Spamhaus Blacklist
>
> False positives are pretty-much guaranteed, if you don't confirm
> that with other resources.
We have had no complaints.
> You'd better not do that to your outbound clients though
We perform no outbound checks, but rely on higher-level network security,
i.e. identification of infected hosts and exploitable HTTP proxies.
MUAs are fundamentally crap and written by people who don't know the
difference between RFC 821 and the car number plate you want to run them
over with.
> If -only- we could be sure which attachments Windoze in its wisdom is
> going to deem to be executable, in one or other of its multifarious
> ways.
file(1) is great.
Tony.
--
<fanf@???> <dot@???>
http://dotat.at/ ${sg{\N${sg{\
N\}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}\
\N}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}
