[Mimedefang] Deadline for SPF records *long w/morbid horoscope*

[Jeff Rife]

On 9 Aug 2004 at 20:21, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

> I thought about the statement below a lot because it seemed correct at first
> that pushing valid emails to all the gateways would solve the issue.
> However, the more I thought about it, invalid bounces are a big problems and
> SPF is a reasonable solution to start cutting down on them.  Large batches
> of outbound false emails that don't match SPF or get repeated bounces should
> trigger a shutdown of a clients outbound mailing ability especially as
> worms/virii that forge headers become the norm.

If the receiving MX servers always knew all valid recipient addresses 
*at (E)SMTP connection time*, then there would be no bounces...only 
rejections.

This solves the problem without introducing anything new to (E)SMTP.


--
Jeff Rife        | "Space.  It seems to go on and on forever.  But 
SPAM bait:       |  then you get to the end and a gorilla starts 
AskDOJ at usdoj.gov |  throwing barrels at you." 
spam at ftc.gov     |         -- Philip J. Fry, "Futurama"