Postfix anti-antivirus (was Re: [linux-elitists] procmail recipe for mydoom?)
Tue Feb 10 16:18:56 PST 2004
On 11 Feb 2004, Ben Finney <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 11-Feb-2004, Martin Pool wrote:
> > On 11 Feb 2004, Ben Finney <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > Or, better, the recipients of the bounce messages can pressure the
> > > smarthost to stop accepting the malware in the first place.
> > Why doesn't the person at the destination address do that? Why shift
> > the work onto the person whose address was forged?
> The destination has already reacted exactly the way the relay MTA should
> have: by rejecting the message at SMTP time. The work is not being
> shifted by the destination, but *by the relay*.
The relay is too stupid, but the destination ought to know better.
The destination knows that if it rejects the message at SMTP time, it
will generate junk to the forged address. It shouldn't do it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20040211/6a8ce9bd/attachment.pgp
More information about the linux-elitists