On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 04:00:43PM +0100, Justin Mason wrote: | BTW my position on this, FWIW, is to take the old IETF position: "be | conservative in what you send, and liberal in what you receive".
Doesn't that kind of imply accepting all the spam and whatever other
junk is thrown at you?
It seems that, as far as mail goes, the trend is reversing. More and
more sites are being more restrictive in what they receive in attempts
to reduce the spam. In fact, that is SA's goal :-).
| ie, if lots of legit mail contains non-RFC-compliant stuff, then it
| should be accepted, even if the RFCs say it's bad.
I just love seeing messages like this in my rejectlog :
2002-07-12 10:58:13 rejected HELO from [207.191.53.194]: syntactically invalid
argument(s): CAB's CPU
(what kind of hostname is that? probably a MS worm that can't get in :-))
2002-07-12 13:16:54 17T4yL-0004G0-00 H=pony-express.cs.rit.edu [129.21.30.24]
F=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> rejected after DATA: missing or malformed local part
(expected word or "<"): failing address in "From" header is: Multi-function Digital
Camera - PDC-31
[envelope and received headers snipped]
F From: Multi-function Digital Camera - PDC-31
Subject: Multi-function Digital Camera - PDC-31
T To: Dear Sir's
The camera, without an address even, sent a message about itself to
some dear gentlemen who also don't have addresses. It's the syntax
checks that rejected this, without even spending resources on SA.
_This_ is why I like strict sanity checking on the RFC-based validity
of the message. As far as SA goes, it won't even see a syntactically
invalid header except in rare circumstances. (such as a certain ISP
who sends DSNs with "Reply-To: <>")
-D
--
Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you
rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and
humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke
is easy and my burden is light.
Matthew 11:28-30
http://dman.ddts.net/~dman/
msg07363/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
