On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Markus Wiederkehr <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin > <[email protected]> wrote: > > <snip> > >>> In section 4.1.1.10. the RFC also says that "The receiver MUST NOT >>> intentionally close the transmission channel until it receives and >>> replies to a QUIT command". >> >> yes >> >> however, this behaviour is a real PITA for servers and enables DOS >> attacks. > > I'm not an expert but wouldn't you run a DOS attack between DATA and > the dot? Send a few bytes, wait a few seconds, send a few bytes...
easier coding just to open a connection and then not quit, but yes, i see your point > Besides, a reasonable timeout wouldn't be a problem. Timeouts are also > specified in section 4.5.3.2. in the RFC. yep (but IMHO 4.1.1.10 should have been clarified to include the possibility of a timeout) - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
