From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] forget authing the senders
Message-ID: <20030929073858.X27821@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <20030928203528.U27821@cackle.proxima.alt.za> <7c31e1e429810c8df2a896d6b7bfdbb9@sdgm.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <7c31e1e429810c8df2a896d6b7bfdbb9@sdgm.net>; from boyd@sdgm.net on Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 02:51:46PM -0400
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 07:38:59 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 54cd4d48-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 02:51:46PM -0400, boyd@sdgm.net wrote:
>
> you don't need a reverse lookup.  you never use domain name.
> getpeername(2) on lunix will hand up the address -- always
> use dotted quads.
>
Thing is, I can suppress SPAM to my own workstation, but not to my
client's users, on the off chance that something important arrives
unsolicited.

I can't afford to reply and request confirmation, because then I've
alerted the spammer that my address is in fact valid; something in
the current climate I'd rather avoid (our discussion has omitted
that fact, but I can see why).

I _could_ demand that the DNS for the connecting exchanger be set
up in both directions, preferably matched, as my mail exchanger
can validate such details.  But at the user level this is unacceptable:
too many exchangers are _not_ set up in such a fashion and many of
them are legitimate forwarders.

The same with relays, but more pervasive.  In case you wonder, my
own exchanger (cackle.proxima.alt.za [196.30.44.141]) will reject
mail from exchangers with unresolved IP addresses.  I keep stats
for that as well, but they are not as high, understandably, and
they are not web-accessible.

> anyway?  where is your face?

Rhetoric question?  It's in the Plan 9 distribution.

++L