Noel Jones wrote:
Very likely there are other, better ways to combat this spam. Look
for other traits you can use to reject it.
I am, by no means, anything even close to expert WRT the whole SMTP
process, but, I do think that I can provide (or at least what I believe
to be) a valid, albeit opinionated, counter argument. See below.
some things to look for:
- client listed on some RBL
- client name that looks dynamic
- using your domain or IP as HELO
- unusual headers
- body text unlikely to be found in legit mail
If that doesn't help, consider adding SpamAssassin and/or ClamAV.
From my POV, this one check saves me a small few (100, 200?) DNS/RBL
lookups per month and a few CPU cycles by not getting to header checks,
body checks, and finally SA (which is probably the most expensive check
in the stack, followed immediately by virus scanning). I can probably
parse my logs and give a real number, but it would seem insignificant to
those running large servers. It is my _choice_ to be as efficient as
possible.
<IMO>
Please correct me if I've made an invalid assumption (but do take notice
of the "IMO" qualifier!)
I can find absolutely no reason to inadvertently mislead, or worse,
intentionally deceive the recipient by forging the envelope sender's
address. In fact, the only reason I can see, is to intentionally
deceive the recipient. Is there any other reason?
It is plain irresponsible, even if allowed by RFC. Even more so given
that most (all?) mail clients will honor the from header and display it,
in big, bright, flashy, bold text, in a prominent location for the end
user to see (and reply to). Maybe I've missed something, but I really
cannot find a good reason to allow it. Even the BlackBerry example
given above is an example of poor practice in my opinion, but it can be
an ALLOWed exception if it is out of your control.
But that is all a matter of principal, not a technical reason. The
technical reason (minor increase in efficiency) was above, but I also
provide one more weak technical argument. Another possible (but pretty
unlikely now days) side effect of allowing such message mangling to
occur is that it could lead to backscatter if an intermediate server is
mis-configured. That is not my problem if it is 'properly' denied at
the door and not allowed (either direction) by my server.
</IMO>
That particular Postfix directive was created for some reason, so
somebody, somewhere must agree. Anyway, bottom line, it is my server.
I try to protect my small number of users from the outside world (and
themselves) as best I can. If they don't like my policy, they can find
another place to put their mail. Others may not be lucky enough to be
able to enforce such a policy, as the counter argument would be to find
a less rigid admin. ;-) What is 'acceptable' has to be determined on a
site by site basis. If it works for this site...great! If it doesn't,
then get rid of it.
I hope that came off as a constructive, alternative vantage point rather
than being argumentative. :-)
-- DJ Lucas
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.
