Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      21 Jul 2013 04:13:38 +0000
From:      "Mark Delany" <n7w@delta.emu.st>
To:        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: bin/176713: [patch] nc(1) closes network socket too soon
Message-ID:  <20130721041338.2121.qmail@f5-external.bushwire.net>
In-Reply-To: <24574.1374375946@server1.tristatelogic.com>
References:  <CAGwOe2ZEV3o-=Z1A3PgBtChAEhMbqB5fwPx-7emGbTSJ7AyMPA@mail.gmail.com> <24574.1374375946@server1.tristatelogic.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> servers running certain protocols.  For example, the rules of the SMTP
> protocol... just to name one... require that a client wait until the
> server has sent out an initial greeting banner before the client sends
> anything to the server.  Some SMTP servers are lenient about enforcing
> this protocol rule, so in practice it may often not be necessary to wait

A while back "fast talkers" as they were called, were a known
signature of some spam bots. The guess is that they would just write
the whole SMTP transaction in one write() immediately following the
connect() and be done with it. A useful optimization when you're
blatting out billions of spam.

You don't see a big mention of this in search engines, so I don't know
how prevalent they are now.

Point being that such an option might be useful to avoid triggering
any detectors that might still be looking for this.


Mark.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130721041338.2121.qmail>