Author: Matt Fretwell Date: To: exim Subject: Re: [exim] Has anyone done this?
Ian Eiloart wrote:
> > 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".
Why is it that the one mistake one makes always gets picked up with a
vengeance :) Yes, I already do know the difference in meaning between the
two. My brain and fingers were obviously not in sync :) However, that is
no excuse for sloppiness on my part. My apologies.
> 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.
My apologies, once again. I do generally try to refrain from using
acronyms, for this specific reason.
SAV = Sender address verification
The relevance between the two concepts being that both connect to the
sending client|server for one specific purpose, of which starting and
completing a transaction is not one of them.
However, even though Peter did mention a valid point, as I mentioned
previously, the whole concept of OS finger printing and other mechanisms
that are suggested for testing the validity of the client machine, such as
Marc's suggestion of connecting to the authentication ports, I do find
distasteful. These are intrusive methods, and in a large enough quantity,
are no better than the problem which they are trying to restrict. The only
difference being that these 'intrusions' are done in the name of 'validity
checking'. Unauthorised and unwanted access takes many forms, of which
Marc is proposing another one to add to the already extensive list.
However, if caching is used, then at least it does become bearable to
some degree whilst trying to maintain the equilibrium with other sites.
My initial statement in this thread still stands, however. I do not
purposefully single out Marc, (his personal implementations are
irrelevant, as his smtp servers, the ones I know of, have been blocked
since his open relay suggestion). But, poor form is poor form. I will most
certainly not pander to, in my humble opinion, another stupid idea.
