[27463] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SMTP in distributed DOS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (I Am Not An Isp)
Sun Feb 20 16:31:18 2000
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000220132658.00e07da0@mail.ianai.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 13:28:27 -0800
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: I Am Not An Isp <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <200002202107.e1KL7Qc29420@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 04:07 PM 2/20/00 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>Correct. But the person said we *should* bounce back to the originating IP
>address, which is what's logged in the Received: header. My point was that
>if we *did* what he suggested, *his* mail would quite possibly be broken
>by taking the action. I've seen a number of mail packages (PP from the
>ISODE comes to mind, but there's others) that refused to accept mail if
>they couldn't verify at message submission time that they'd be able to send
>back a bounce message. I'm not saying that's correct EITHER, just that
>there's sites that do that.
Sorry, guess I misread the original post.
I thought he was just sending it to a random hostname in the received
headers, not in the from field.
Oh, well, just goes to show you cannot trust someone without enable! :)
> Valdis Kletnieks
TTFN,
patrick
--
I Am Not An Isp - www.ianai.net
ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs, <http://www.ispf.com>
"Think of it as evolution in action." - Niven & Pournelle
(Enable? We dunt need no stinkin' enable!!)
