Re: A request to all mail admins

From: Tim Haynes (usenet-20030828_at_stirfried.vegetable.org.uk)
Date: 08/29/03 

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:16:12 +0100

Brad Olin <bwo@bwo1.com> writes:

> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:48:22 +0100, Tim Haynes
> <usenet-20030828@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Speaking of which: it's entirely possible to abuse this system, isn't it?
>>You just send your spam in the name of a domain you own, or an equally-evil
>>friend owns, and they set their permitted netblock to 0/0 in the RMX
>>records.
>>
> My thought is, that if you are going to make a rule then you have to
> stick with the spirit of it. So if they set RMX to 0/0 (or anything
> reserved/invalid) then you don't accept smpt connections from them.
>
> Maybe that is viewed as harsh policy, but... If you don't address the
> issues then you find yourself fixing it over and over again.

No, I entirely agree; there's absolutely no point in coming up with a
half-assed "solution" that even I can see through in under a 5 minutes.

So in addition to RMX, implementations need a method of discerning how wide
the RMX values are and what's permissible. Fair enough.

Now, RFCs, and multiple open-source implementations for my MTA, please? ;8)

~Tim 

-- 
   23:14:36 up 83 days, 13:50,  2 users,  load average: 0.10, 0.07, 0.04
piglet@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk |Another day,
http://piglet.is.dreaming.org     |Another apt-get dist-upgrade