Re: delineating DRIP

Gordon Fecyk - Home wrote:
> 
> > 4) because DRIP protects HELO, we get fewer direct to MX
> > spams and viruses from
> >       compromised hosts.
> > 5) Unix (like) .forwards and aliases break.
> >
> > That is correct but RMX/DMP/SPF/Vixie does not share #4.
> > And DRIP does not share #5.
> 
> Checking MAIL FROM stops direct-to-mx viruses and spam.  It wouldn't stop
> spam and viruses using an authorized relay.  And how does DRIP not break
> .forward?

DRIP does not check MAIL FROM parameters, it checks HELO parameters.

> > The RMX/DMP/SPF/Vixie only world
> > also breaks important, useful, and used email functionality.
> 
> I thought we were here to rise above SMTP. [1] To patch it in most cases.
> 
> Certain functionality is being abused beyond usefulness.  When that happens,
> said functionality gets turned off.  Open relays, SMB, RSH, X-windows over
> TCP... these all were useful at one time but no one recommends any of them
> anymore.

I disagree that .forwards are "being abused beyond usefulness".

> [1] I'll try not to bring this up again.  But we are here to effectively
> turn off otherwise useful functionality so it doesn't get abused again.

We are here to do something about the SPAM problem. The proposals under
consideration attempt to do this by making MAIL FROM parameter or HELO
parameter forging more difficult. The amount of collateral damage caused
by the implementation of a proposal does need to be considered.


Raymond S Brand