Autor: Ian FREISLICH Data: A: Robert Millan CC: exim-dev, John W. Baxter Assumpte: Re: [exim-dev] [PATCH] Implement redirect
Robert Millan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 04:41:37PM -0700, John W. Baxter wrote:
> > On 6/29/06 10:40 AM, "Robert Millan" <rmh@???> wrote:
> > > E.g., I don't think anyone would want to use this for his main
> > > address (the one in his From: headers), but if he has other
> > > addresses that are obsolete and/or barely used, but still generate
> > > a lot of traffic (spam), in this situation 551 codes would be
> > > suitable.
> >
> > A spammed address would be a case where 551 isn't suitable (or
> > won't be for long). Do we really want it to be worth while to the
> > spammers and phishers to learn to understand "Joe isn't here, he
> > moved to the trailer down the road--go break his leg there"?
>
> The question is that you could have an MTA with lots of delivery-time
> checks in recipient side, but you can't take advantage of them if the
> spammer doesn't attempt to delivery their stuff directly.
>
> So it's more like: "I don't have a bat to beat you here, but Joe is in
> the trailer down the road. Go there and get your leg broken."
So how long before this gets abused as a form of EXPN or VRFY?
Which FWIW gets turned off with prejudice at most sites if modern
mail servers these days even support those commands.
