Re: Spamcop - VMS

This is a discussion on Re: Spamcop - VMS ; > Has anyone else seen this? Am I behind the times, or have bounce messages > now become a bad thing? Or has Spamcop just gone off the deep end? IMO its a little bit of both. In this times ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: Spamcop

  1. Re: Spamcop

    > Has anyone else seen this? Am I behind the times, or have bounce messages
    > now become a bad thing? Or has Spamcop just gone off the deep end?


    IMO its a little bit of both. In this times of joe-jobs and blowback spam it is
    essential that as many checks as possible be performed by the SMTP server
    before accepting mail to a given recipient. At a bare minimum invalid addresses
    simply must be rejected, and it is best if things like over quota situations
    are also dealt with at this point.

    Additionally, messages that are accepted but then found to be spam or viruses
    should be silently discarded, not bounced. The chances that the return address
    information in such message is legitimate and that you are doing someone a
    service by informing them of the spam/virus are so low the costs clearly far
    outweigh the benefits. (I note in passing that sieve reject has proved to be a
    really bad idea in this regard.)

    However, there are going to be cases where no reasonable course is possible but
    to accept a message and send an automatic response later - list server replies,
    user just went over quota, whatever. I do recommend spam/virus filtering mail
    sent to anything that can generate an automatic response, and autoresponders
    probably need to be taught to silently drop grossly malformed material, but
    there are going to be cases where the only reasonable action is to send an
    automatic reply. And to pretend otherwise is yet another symptom of anti-spam
    kookery, one that probably should be added to:

    http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html

    Ned

  2. Re: Spamcop

    In article <01LOA42D00IM00004T@mauve.mrochek.com>, ned+info-pmdf@mauve.mrochek.com writes:
    >> Has anyone else seen this? Am I behind the times, or have bounce messages
    >> now become a bad thing? Or has Spamcop just gone off the deep end?

    >
    >IMO its a little bit of both. In this times of joe-jobs and blowback spam it is
    >essential that as many checks as possible be performed by the SMTP server
    >before accepting mail to a given recipient. At a bare minimum invalid addresses
    >simply must be rejected, and it is best if things like over quota situations
    >are also dealt with at this point.
    >

    How do you check users being overquota during the SMTP dialogue especially if
    the check is being done on your central mailhub which then has to deliver the
    mail to various internal systems ?


    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University

+ Reply to Thread