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 -- ## 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/
