[vox-tech] the answer to all my virus problems

[Rod Roark]

On Sunday 21 September 2003 01:57 am, Ken Bloom wrote:
> 
> On 2003.09.20 22:10, p@dirac.org wrote:
> > On Sat 20 Sep 03,  9:20 PM, Ken Bloom <kabloom@ucdavis.edu> said:
> [Snip older quotings]
> > > Umm, please consider the golden rule when sending reject messages.
> > > Do not unto others as you would not want done unto you.
> > > This can go two ways though because you might not want your legit
> > > messages silently dropped. You be the judge.
> > 
> > umm, there must be some kind of confusion here.
> > 
> > these messages aren't silently dropped.  they're rejected.  there's a
> > big difference...
> > 
> > that's why they're called "reject messages".    :-)
> > 
> > pete
> 
> I'll clarify. Do not unto others as you would not want done unto you,
> There are two situations I specifically had in mind here. I only wrote  
> one out and it was kind of confusing, so I appologize for that.
> 
> (a) Supposing a Klez-like virus got dropped by this filter: you would      
> send out a rejection message to the wrong sender - and I know you've  
> all been trying to rig your mailers to ignore these rejection messages  
> (Bill Kendrick mentioned wanting to do this earlier in the thread).  
> Hence, do not unto others as you would not want done unto you.

Didn't you see my last email on this topic?  The "rejection
message" in question is not email.  It's a response line
sent back to the sending server (the one which connected to
my server) as part of the SMTP protocol.

Any bounce messages would be the responsibility of that
server.  This is another great reason to reject the nasty
stuff at the front door; you don't care if the headers are
forged.

-- Rod