DO> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 17:02:51 -0800
DO> From: Douglas Otis
DO> > H. BATV-triggered bounces. Virus triggers forged bounce which in
DO> > turn triggers "your DSN was misguided" bounce. Perhaps the bandwidth
DO> > growth of the '90s will continue. ;-)
DO>
DO> BATV should not trigger any
On Dec 7, 2005, at 4:06 PM, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
H. BATV-triggered bounces. Virus triggers forged bounce which in
turn triggers "your DSN was misguided" bounce. Perhaps the bandwidth
growth of the '90s will continue. ;-)
BATV should not trigger any bounce as this only changes the l
DO> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 14:15:00 -0800
DO> From: Douglas Otis
DO> > Perhaps DSNs should be sent to the original recipient, not the purported
DO> > sender. RFC-compliant? No. Ridiculous? Less so than pestering a
DO> > random third party. Let the intended recipient communicate OOB or
DO> > m
On Dec 7, 2005, at 1:35 PM, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
DO> Not all email is rejected within the SMTP session. You are
changing
DO> requirements for recipients that scan incoming messages for
malware. Fault
DO> them for returning content or not including a null bounce-
address. No one
DO>
DO> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:26:16 -0800
DO> From: Douglas Otis
DO> I know of no cases where a malware related DSN would be generated by our
Good.
DO> products, nevertheless, DSNs are not Unsolicited Bulk Email.
Huh? I get NDRs for mail that "I" sent. I do not want those NDRs. I
did not r
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Douglas Otis wrote:
> > Not my problem. I don't need or want, and should not be hammered with,
> > virus "warnings" sent to forged addresses -- ever. They are unsolicited (I
> > didn't request it, and definitely don't want it), bulk (automated upon
> > receipt of viruses by
Glen Kent wrote:
Am all the more confused now :)
In pre-RFC1058 implementations the sender increments the metric, so a
directly-connected route's metric is 1 on the wire.
In post-RFC1058 implementations the receiver increments the metric, so
a directly-connected route's metric is 0 on the wi
- Original Message -
From: "Douglas Otis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Todd Vierling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Church, Chuck"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was
After reading this thread well after it has ended...why does it seem
that a lot of folks equate "trust" with "paying money?"
Trust isn't about who can pay what but maintaining a system that
conveys trust does *cost* money.
The RIRs are not-for-profit themselves. That doesn't mean
service-
At 17:06 -1000 11/23/05, Randy Bush wrote:
i have been whining about the problems of cross-registry operation
for over a decade, formally, informally, presos, ... i have had it
on every rir's meeting agenda (except lacnic) for many years. do i
need to iterate for every ort of service the regi
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Douglas Otis wrote:
> > Not my problem. I don't need or want, and should not be hammered
> > with, virus "warnings" sent to forged addresses -- ever. They are
> > unsolicited (I didn't request it, and definitely don't want it),
> > bulk (automated upon receipt of virus
* Steven M. Bellovin:
> A-V companies are in the business of analyzing viruses.
Many offer analysis services, but this is done upon special request,
and only if you pay extra.
> They should *know* how a particular virus behaves.
You don't need to know what the virus does in order to detect it
12 matches
Mail list logo
