[122751] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Spamhaus...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Sat Feb 20 19:11:44 2010
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:10:54 -0800
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <4B80273D.7010301@cox.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 2/20/2010 11:53 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> So we've looked at it from 2 different aspects, and in both cases, the
>> RFC says you shouldn't be bouncing spam to where it came from.
>
> Small nit, which is germane to the whole discussion; "...the RFC says
> you shouldn't be bouncing spam to where IT SAYS it came from."
>
> There is no way in the current universe to know where the item came from
> by inspecting it. You can only tell where you got it from...and if you
> can't reject it while you know that, you must discard it.
s/mime detached signatures rooted in some ca that you trust are actually
a rather good way of identifying the sender. it's path or orign mail
server is rather irrelevant in that context. i's not a general purpose
solution but your statement is false.
