Author: Ian Eiloart Date: To: Matt Fretwell, exim CC: Subject: Re: [exim] Has anyone done this?
--On March 7, 2005 11:01:23 +0000 Matt Fretwell <mattf@???> wrote:
> Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
>
>> >> Trying to establish TCP connections to other machines that are
>> >> connected to the internet is not illegal. At least it isn't in
>> >> Germany, and that's a feature.
>> >
>> > No, but it is extremely annoying in most cases, and ends up getting
>> > the client firewalled, (in my book anyway),
>>
>> That's ridiculous. Why would an SMTP server that's trying to send me
>> mail object that I try to make a TCP connection to it. I already do
>> ident callouts to the sending host. Surely its completely fair to make a
>> callout to a sending host as frequently as it tries to send mail to me.
>
> Did I ever infer that I objected to a reverse connection when I send mail
> to someones system? No, I did not.
Infer? No - you've got the wrong word there. You did imply it, or at least
I inferred it from what you said. Check the dictionary definitions of
"infer" and "imply".
I inferred it because you were responding to a proposal that three ports be
checked. You later switched to talking about "SAV lookup", without defining
the term. The term doesn't appear in the last 10,000 posts to exim-users,
and I don't know what it is.
Anyway, nothing in the proposal is suggesting more than finding out whether
a port is open.
> I said that not caching a positive
> result with regards to a SAV lookup, or other methods of authenticating
> the legitimacy of the sender|client were irresposible and annoying. They
> are. Pure and simple fact.
>
> Do a SAV probe on my server more than once when the same sender address
> is used and within a respectable, and cacheable, span of time, and you
> would be blocked. The 'cannot be arsed' attitude that some have with
> regards to responsibly configuring their systems to minimise the impact
> they have on other peoples systems is such that, if they cannot configure
> their system in a responsible manner, I do not trust the rest of their
> setup, and so the lack of consideration is duly returned. Tough luck.
>
> Also, did I ever say that I did not allow ident lookups. No. They are one
> area where I digress because of the amount of problems which would be
> caused by blocking those.
>
>
>
>> It looks to me like the list is playing the game of trying to find the
>> most spurious objections to Marc's proposals that it can - again.
>>
>> > if the results are not cached.
>>
>> I think he already suggested something like that.
>
> No, he did not. By the time the above reply was sent, possibly, but upto
> the conception and posting of my initial reply, that had not been
> mentioned. Objectionable I may be. Blind, however, I am not.
>
>
>
>> > I will be honest though, even after Peter pointed out the plus point
>> > if implemented correctly, I still cannot see an overall benefit from
>> > this method. The concept would be simple to circumvent if it became
>> > generally deployed.
>>
>> As are most of the methods that we use to prevent spam. Its an arms
>> race.
>
> Too true. But, once again, did I ever infer that I agreed with any other
> method. You have no concept of what I find objectionable, so to say that I
> am trying to single out any one persons ideas as bunkum without having a
> relative base figure to compare to is, on your part Sir, pure speculation.
>
>
> Matt
