From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Sep 7 19:51:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA28646 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 19:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usr07.primenet.com (tlambert@usr07.primenet.com [206.165.6.207]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA28638; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 19:51:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA16323; Sun, 7 Sep 1997 19:51:23 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199709080251.TAA16323@usr07.primenet.com> Subject: Re: spam and the FreeBSD mailing lists To: gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 02:51:22 +0000 (GMT) Cc: jmb@FreeBSD.ORG, ahd@kew.com, hackers@hub.freebsd.org, support@kew.com In-Reply-To: <19970907181727.43084@hydrogen.nike.efn.org> from "John-Mark Gurney" at Sep 7, 97 06:17:27 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > actually.. yes it does... the mail from: is exactly that... the return > path... i.e. if it isn't resolvable, then it's not a valid return path... > now if you provide a uucp address.. then it's a bit harder to verify > that it's valid... No it's not. You only have to validate the UUCP relay domain, not the UUCP address, unless *you* are the relay, in which case it's coming in through you, and you have listed the uucp hosts which connect directly to you both as machines you MX for (to allow outbound relay to them, and to allow inbound relay to any address by them). The relay takes effect *after* the spam countermeasures. For a spammer UUCP site relaying through you: change their password; I've never seen one anyway, mostly because the route information is much better than sendmail's because the "for
" is an optional component of the "Received:" timestamp line (RFC821, page 32). > personally... I think that it isn't bad any more... considering how easy > it is to fix, (I posted the fix a couple days ago) I'm actually heading > twards the end that forces it to resolve... :) This neglects the case of a machine acting as the domain for which it is a member in order to send mail. It also neglects the point of browsers on PCs that you yourself raised earlier: Eudora, IEx.x, and NetScape all can send mail without a valid return address. As can "cyberbomber", etc.. Consider someone like that, who nevertheless subscribes to the list with a valid return address. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.