RE: CBV
Tony Finch <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.spam.srs.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Seth Goodman wrote: > > Harvesting an SES address does you little good if it contains a hash of > the message body and some headers, which your spam won't match. It's > not ideal, in that the MAIL FROM: would be accepted, but the body check > based on the hash embedded in MAIL FROM: would fail and you would wind > up rejecting the message at the end of DATA (ugh). In what way is this operationally different from putting the hash in the header? There isn't enough space for an address signature and a message contents hash in the reverse path address. Since it must be possible to validate the address reasonably securely in the absence of any other information, the message content hash does not help. The message content hash is only useful when you have the message content to check it against, so the right place to put it is with the message content. -- Tony Finch <[email protected]> http://dotat.at/