Re: Spamming...

Brian Candler <[email protected]> Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:35:59 +0100
Newsgroups gmane.mail.im2000
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 10:09:57PM -0000, James Craig Burley wrote:
> Perhaps "injector" or "submitter" could be used to refer to whichever
> (SMTP or whatever) client initially "injects" the message into the
> Internal mail system as a whole.

SMTP doesn't have such a concept, of course.

With SMTP there is the concept of a "return address"; the only signficance
of this address is during error handling, where it says where the bounce
message should be sent (or that the bounce message should be discarded, if
it is empty).

I can ask for my bounces to be sent to [email protected], even though the
message says From: [email protected] (or vice versa). That's a legitimate
thing to do, for me anyway.

And even then, this return address is only a *purported* address. Unless the
SMTP sender has authenticated themselves, *and* the SMTP server has a way to
associate authenticated IDs with acceptable return addresses, *and* all
intermediate machines through which this message has passed are trustworthy,
then there's little way to be sure that this address is associated with the
sender/submitter of the message. (That's the problem which SRS, SES, BATV et
al. try to address).

> >I also wanted to respond to the "spammers just buy lots of domains" 
> >argument.  Whilst in a black and white argument, you are right, people can 
> >just buy more, if you expand the argument to encompass the overwhelming 
> >adoption of email as a communicative medium by the entire world, a "globally 
> >deployed" SPF could have strong value. 
> 
> I'm not sure how.  As all the rants, pro and con, about SPF have
> suggested, either we're going to have a world in which every "known"
> email address is globally determinable to send email from only a
> handful of (tightly controlled) origination points (IP addresses), in
> which case SPF is helpful, or we're not, in which case deploying SPF
> is a modestly expensive version of playing whack-a-mole.

It's worse than that. SPF only ties *domains* to IP addresses, not E-mail
addresses to IP addresses.

So if I have account [email protected], I can send SMTP mail with a return
address of [email protected] or [email protected]; I can send mail with any
return address using a domain which happens to have a corresponding SPF
policy (e.g. [email protected] where othercustomer.com sends their
outgoing mail via the same ISP as me); and of course with no return address
at all.

Brian.