Re: [Full-disclosure] throwing the book at spam
- From: Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:35:04 -0400
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:33:32 BST, lsi said:
These tests are fairly self-explanatory, with the exception of the
analyse_received test. This test analyses the significant Received:
headerline inside each mail (there are usually several Received:
lines, but only one is relevant for our purpose). Any mail with an
invalid Received: line is deleted. The tests for validity are as
follows:
IP_missing
IP_obfuscation
IP_unreversible
by-line_not_present
sending_SMTP_server_unresolvable
sending_hostname_not_provided
Note that these tests are *very* hard to get right. In particular, they
tend to fail spectacularly if you don't allow for the fact that many times,
the mail originates inside an RFC1918 private network, so trying to resolve
the IP addresses will fail.
There's also a lot of other ways this can bork up if at any time a split-view
DNS was involved, or there is/was a temporary DNS outage....
Attachment:
pgpd8I4OYmRVN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: [Full-disclosure] 70 million computers are using Windows 98rightnow
- Next by Date: [Full-disclosure] Google Malware Search
- Previous by thread: [Full-disclosure] throwing the book at spam
- Next by thread: Re: [Full-disclosure] throwing the book at spam
- Index(es):
