[Mimedefang] Reputation Reporting Protocol submitted to IETF as an I-D
David F. Skoll
dfs at roaringpenguin.com
Sat Jun 19 09:59:54 EDT 2010
> I can say this right off: Encoding the timestamp as an integer with
> an anchor year is going to be a problem (e.g in 2038 or 2106)
> requiring a future version upgrade.
No, it's not.
We are not encoding the timestamp. If you read the RFC carefully, you'll
see that we're encoding the low-order 32 bits of the timestamp. The *only*
purpose of that field is to help detect and fend off replay attacks.
If an attacker wants to hold onto a packet for 2^32 seconds (~136
years) and then reinject it... well yeah, we don't protect against
> Maybe you don't care about the 27-year timebomb you're giving yourself.
Absolutely we don't care; see above.
> IP-address-types: Consider adding as a separate value "spamtrap"
> that occurs as a result of delivery to a spamtrap address.
IMO, that's the same as AUTO-SPAM, but I suppose we could add another TYPE
> Section 8 - Example Report: Should use an IPv6 address from the
> documentation prefix (2001:DB8::/32) instead of a live address.
OK; I'll fix that in the next version.
More information about the MIMEDefang