On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Ian FREISLICH wrote:

> Ah, you folk in acedemia might not then have encountered the argument
> from a paying customer "I don't care if the admin of the site hosting
> my prospective customer is a fool, your decision to not accept their
> mail on the basis of the failed callout is costing me potential
> business".

Since you can't reliably tell the difference between a spammer, and a 
misconfigured but otherwise bona fide sender, you'd have to accept 
everything that was offered, and leave it to the recipient to decide.

Our users would not tolerate that - they are overwhelmingly supportive 
of our anti-spam efforts - I'd go further, they positively *demand* it 
of us; the number of complaints received from our own users about 
rejection of bona fide mail offers is very small, and usually the 
explanations we give them are well-received.

The most recent complaints that I can recall, on the other hand, from 
would-be senders themselves were, in fact, people presenting their own 
*.gov sender addresses but trying to send direct-to-MX mail from their 
US domestic DSL accounts.  I don't know about you, but when presented 
with such a scenario I would definitely "smell a rat".

> And that is a nice intellectualisation. 
[...]

> What I don't get is why you (and many others) think it's OK to:
> 1. Steal resources.

Because we play our own part in responding to callouts when our own 
domains are faked as senders by the spammers (which they heavily are)?

> 2. Participate in a DDoS attack (of innocents to boot).

I must stress that callout is pretty much a last-resort in the RCPT 
ACL.  There are plenty of earlier opportunities for us to reject a 
RCPT offer without bothering a third party in that way.

While it's possible to devise the kind of DDoS scenario that you 
mention, we have a number of countermeasures which I suspect would be 
more likely to make our own server unresponsive (with the max number 
of exim processes having rejected abusive requests and then applying a 
time delay) before we'd managed to DoS anyone else.

And callout certainly is not our default - it's only used in selected 
circumstances.

But yes, your point is taken, and if you are opposed *in principle* to 
this approach then I appreciate that there is nothing I can say that 
will satisfy you.

regards

-- 
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users 
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/

Reply via email to