On Friday, June 23, 2006, 6:36:38 AM, Michael Monnerie wrote: > On Freitag, 23. Juni 2006 14:49 Jeff Chan wrote:
>> 4. A DNSBL is a reasonably good technology for distributing >> these data. > Yes, some DNSBL. It should be one that contains newly registered > domains, within the 5 day test period. This could only be provided by a > registrar - could ANY registrar see that info, or only the one who > registered a domain, or who is responsible for that TLD? Please see the topic of the original message. Such a BL has already been created by Rick Wesson of ar.com. >> 3. It requires a program like SpamAssassin to deobfuscate and >> exatract URIs to be checked. > I believe soon the time will come that e-mail checks will change: > 1) When new mail arrives, HELO, MAIL FROM, RCPT TO is passed and checked > (is already done) > 2) If mail passes, accept DATA > 3) after DATA, but before the last OK, check URIBLs, and either make > 200, or 4xx, or 5xx, depeding on the check > 4) accept mail > 5) check with SA more thoroughly > For point 3), it's important that this is a very lightweight SA, only > getting URIs withing the mail, and checking against some RBLs. Is it > possible with SA in it's current form to say "do not apply ANY checks, > just get me the list of URIs"? Then with the checks you posted, and a > good return code, the MTA could 4xx or 5xx the connection for new > domains. Yes, it's possible to use SA to reject at the MTA level, but it's not the typical use due to the significant overhead of running SA. Typically the MTA is used to first reject as many of the messages as possible due to RBL inclusion and other relatively quick and easy things to check. SA then processes the ones that survive. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
