Re: [Asrg] Please critique my anti-spam system

["Michael Kaplan" <mkaplansolution at lycos.com>]

> > > > No innocent user will ever get an erroneous bounce if a few of the
> > > > large consumer ISP adopt the system;
> > > > I must admit I find this statement utterly incomprehensible - or more
> > > precisely, I find the idea that anyone of your obvious intelligence
> > > could believe it utterly incomprehensible.  How will - how *could* - "a
> > > few of the large consumer ISPs" adopting your system, or any other,
> > > prevent a small site handling its own mail in, say, San Jose, from
> > > sending an erroneous bounce to a user at a small site handling its own
> > > mail in, say, Ottawa?
> >
> > I was unclear.  What I meant was that it would be a simple matter for
> > and email provider to recognize a bounce sent via my system.
> 
> And for the gazillion of similar schemes, too? The examples on your web
> site don't look like standard DSNs (you don't even say if the "bounces"
> are sent with an empty envelope from or with <Autoresponder at domain.com>
> as the mail headers suggest), they look like free form text. Currently
> everybody implementing your scheme is very likely to generate different
> bounce messages - and from experience with handling bogus "a mail you
> sent was blocked because of a virus" messages I can tell you that they
> are not easy to recognize.
> 

I did not specify it on my website, but I envision that the bounces would
have somekind of standard tag that would be used to identify it as a bounce.
This standard tag could be used by a gazillion other schemes that employ
bounces, but I am not aware of any other scheme utilizing bounces that
warrants mass adoption.

> > The email provider could then check to see if the recipient had
> > previously sent out an email to the supposed source of the bounce.  If
> > the recipient had not sent out this earlier email then the bounce that
> > is coming in must obviously be an erroneous bounce and it would then
> > be blocked.
> 
> The supposed source of the bounce is <Autoresponder at domain.com>.
> Assuming you mean the failed address, how does the MTA get that? Is it
> supposed to parse the English sentence "The following message that you
> sent to Joe at domain.com was blocked ..." (and its Chinese translation)?
> Please use at least an already standardized format for DSNs (sie RFC
> 3461) if you want at least a small chance that MTAs will behave as you
> expect them to behave.
> 

You are right.  Instead of saying Autoresponder at domain.com it should say
Joe at domain.com.  I was trying to emphasize that it was an automated email
as opposed to a personally written email.  I will need to correct my website.
 
Michael Kaplan
-- 
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10


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