From owner-freebsd-current Tue Aug 17 13:26:33 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from gungnir.fnal.gov (gungnir.fnal.gov [131.225.80.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71AF157A0 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:26:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from crawdad@gungnir.fnal.gov) Received: from gungnir.fnal.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gungnir.fnal.gov (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA04143; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:21:49 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199908172021.PAA04143@gungnir.fnal.gov> To: "Pleschutznig, Andreas" Cc: "'Leif Neland'" , current@FreeBSD.ORG From: "Matt Crawford" Subject: Re: Dropping connections without RST In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 17 Aug 1999 14:55:38 EDT. <11585F032846CF11867900805FE2A57706D6191C@n1002smx.nt.schwab.com> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:21:49 -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > This reminds me of a proposal for sendmail; instead of rejecting > > mail from known spammers, one would accept the connection, but > > slow traffic down to the slowest possible, so the spammer could > > only deliver very few messages. Instead of killing the spammer, > > make every mailserver like quicksand, drawing him down and > > drowning him :-] > > And afterwards we still could remove the mail. I second this motion ;-)What > happened to this proposal? My own thought for this a year or so ago was to accept SMTP connections with an absurdly small windows size. Open up the window (by increasing the buffer size -- if that setsockopt() is accepted at that point, otherwise hack the socket layer so it is accepted) and process normally if the HELO and MAIL From/RCPT To look all right; otherwise continue to read small gulps of the DATA at slow intervals, then answer the final "." with a *temporary* failure code. Mroo hah hah. Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message