Re: [exim] RSET command

Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, W B Hacker wrote:
>
>> Not clear to me why one would expect RFC compliance *from* spambots, nor owe
>> RFC-compliance *to* spambots. Mynheer Venema put it rather more succinctly.
>>
>> But but never mind - that wasn't the question.
>>
>> Seems the mechanism is not there now, and any such test would require coding.
>
> It's a bit difficult to code the impossible. Bill, you seem to be
> missing the point that others are making about the way SMTP works. When
> host A makes a connection to host B, host A is considered the "client"
> and host B is considered the "server". Host A issues commands
> (typically to transmit a message), and host B responds to the commands
> (typically to accept or refuse the message).
>
> You are asking for ways of getting host B to issue an RSET command. This
> just doesn't make sense. Host B is passive in the sense that it doesn't
> initiate an interaction; it just responds to what host A sends it.
>
> Sure, host B could send the text "RSET" down the wires if it wanted to;
> the effect would be to disrupt the SMTP conversation because host A
> wouldn't understand it. So what could it possibly achieve?
>

"the effect would be to disrupt the SMTP conversation...."

Precisely that. And in an unexpected way.

Spambot is the target, not a 'proper' server.

But 'nuf said... it is beyond the ken of the forum,
so I am down scope on the issue.

Thanks,


Bill Hacker