[email protected] (SM), 2014.03.04 (Tue) 13:12 (CET): > At 00:44 04-03-2014, Marcus MERIGHI wrote: > >as I read this (thanks for the link) there is no real solution to the > >problem. Under "Reducing the problem" it says: > > > >Checking bounce recipients > >Mail servers sending email bounce messages can use a range of measures > >to judge whether a return address has been forged. > > > >Which "range of measures" is this referring to?! > > It is possible to mitigate the backscatter problem.
<irony> And it's even possible to solve the worlds starvation problem. </irony> > There are various heuristics used. Get tangible, please! > RFC 5321 discusses about the unwanted messages problem. Thanks for the pointer but I wonder what you were reading. I read ``6.2. Unwanted, Unsolicited, and "Attack" Messages'': ``Reliably determining that a return address is invalid can be a difficult and time-consuming process, especially if the putative sending system is not directly accessible or does not fully and accurately support VRFY and, even if a "drop messages with invalid return addresses" policy is adopted, it SHOULD be applied only when there is near-certainty that the return addresses are, in fact, invalid.'' > Instead of trying to fix the backscatter problem Which to me still seems unfixable as you did not provide anything tangible. > it would be easier to find out what configuration options could be > useful. <irony> Yeah, let's just work around. </irony> Bye, Marcus -- You received this mail because you are subscribed to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send a mail to: [email protected]
