Re: Bounce handling

On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 16:48 -0800, kent crispin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 10:27:22PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > I consider autoreplies (and especially bounces) with non-empty reverse-
> > path to be an attempted denial of service attack, because of the mail
> > loop they threaten.
> 
> How about an autoreply from majordomo, asking you to confirm your 
> subscription request?

I'd probably include that, yes -- if responding to a request made by
email, it should go to the reverse-path of the incoming subscription
request, and should have an empty reverse-path if its own. 

This would would prevent the autoreplies from being accepted (and
broadcasted) by other mailing lists.

-- 
dwmw2