Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals: LMAP - Forwarding Comment and Recommended Changes

[Richard Rognlie <rrognlie@gamerz.net>]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:18:37PM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:36:11PM -0500, Mark E. Mallett wrote:
> > > The missing link in this scenario is the standardized encoding for the 
> > > return-path within a return-path.
> > 
> > [ ... ]
> > With ENVID, the server owning the ID has to either keep some history,
> > or has to use an algorithm whereby envids can be verified.  The first
> > seems to require more implementation/deployment impact than we're
> > allowed to consider; the second would seem to provide an abuse path.
> > 
> > OTOH I may simply be confused.
> 
> I don't think so (confused ;-).
> 
> I have always wondered if, with LMAP, abusing sender domains will become
> impossible, will spammers fall back to empty envelope senders, aka
> mimiking bounces? How will we solve THAT problem? The first time they
> started admin started blocking empty envelope senders and if this will
> be widely used again I fear a lot more admins will block "bounces".

One answer is the DRIP portion of the LMAP proposal.

DRIP operates on the HELO/EHLO part of the smtp conversation.  And
LMAP advises that a null sender be thought of as mailer-daemon@HELO.HOST.NAME
(for the purposes of validation).

-- 
 /  \__  | Richard Rognlie / Sultan of Sendmail / Gamerz.NET Lackey
 \__/  \ | http://www.gamerz.net/rrognlie/ <rrognlie at gamerz.net>
 /  \__/ | 
 \__/    | CAUTION: may contain Mature material......but I doubt it.


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg