Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422693AbWIGWeH (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Sep 2006 18:34:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422690AbWIGWeG (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Sep 2006 18:34:06 -0400 Received: from khc.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:41700 "EHLO khc.piap.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422704AbWIGWeC (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Sep 2006 18:34:02 -0400 To: Chase Venters Cc: ellis@spinics.net, w@1wt.eu (Willy Tarreau), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: bogofilter ate 3/5 References: <200609061856.k86IuS61017253@no.spam> From: Krzysztof Halasa Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:33:56 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Chase Venters's message of "Thu, 7 Sep 2006 08:46:56 -0500 (CDT)") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 960 Lines: 22 Chase Venters writes: > The problem with trying to stop forgery is that there is not yet a > foolproof or reasonably foolproof method of doing so. The first important point here is that vger rejects mail in SMTP DATA phase, thus making the forgery irrelevant WRT such bounces. Second, being on the list isn't enough for the message to go through, it has to pass the filters as everyone else. Third, while I think "normal" autoresponders (vacation etc.) are perfectly reasonable (not in mailing list context of course), ones which by design respond mostly to forged addresses (do you think antivirus and antispam qualify?) are aimed at the wrong, innocent person. -- Krzysztof Halasa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/