>>> I think we should discourage all broken content in email and on the
>>> web.
>>>
>>> At one time we could assume that broken content was an honest
>>> mistake and make an attempt at fixing it. But with the rise of
>>> malicious content attempting to exploit bugs in content handlers
>>> (like overruns in image libraries), we should simply reject
>>> anything that fails to pass validation, on the assumption that's it
>>> out to get us.
>>>
>>> This includes not just broken images but also broken HTML, which is
>>> so commonly used to conceal spam.
>>>
>>> We need to stop giving a free pass to broken content creation
>>> software just because it's popular. When someone sends you broken
>>> content, you should react the same way you would if they sent you
>>> documents on dirt-smeared paper. Stop letting your emperor walk
>>> around naked.
>>
>> I would, and do, go even further and discourage broken Server/DNS
>> configurations.
>>
>> I've downright had it with all this crap hitting my server.
>>
>> I'm now doing checks right at the MTA and if the sending server fails
>> any hostname, HELO, domain name, SPF etc., checks they don't even get
>> to my content filters. The biggest thing we have in our favour is
>> that the spambots are mostly broken or running on machines that will
>> fail most of these checks.
>>
>> For legitimate email, I send an message to the admins responsible for
>> the broken configs with my log entries explaining why their email was
>> blocked. It's up to them to fix it if they want to send email my way.
>>
>> I know this isn't practical in an environment where you're
>> administering hundreds or thousands of accounts, and I feel your
>> pain, but I think it's time we encouraged proper and correct server
>> and DNS configurations so we can use all the tools at our disposal to
>> our advantage.
>
>I am with you right up until the moment my head says, "Who defines
>proper content?" Then I come back to "email format rwars" and say
>"Fahgeddit."
>
>One man's cilantro spice is another man's intolerable bitterness.
>Do we try to force the bitterness on the other man or do we try to
>accommodate? "Who gets to define how much we must tolerate?" It's
>purely an rwar issue when you apply this to formatting wars. It is
>best to do what YOU will and not get evangelistic about it. If you
>do characters like me get contrary.
>
>{^_^} Joanne, The Stubborn
A great and a wonderful idea until you have users paying you for
e-mail service and you start bouncing their mails because someone or
some program has a bug in it that they have no control over and they
lose that email from their employer, client or whatever and I can
assure you that they will find another provider right quick.
===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766
President +1 206 374 6482 FAX
Netwrx Consulting Inc. Jackson, WI USA
http://www.netwrx1.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ #12862186
