SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity (was Re:Clueless anti-virus )

Sat Dec 10 02:16:31 UTC 2005

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Douglas Otis wrote:

> > None of these are my problem.  I am a non-involved third party to the
> > malware detection software, so I should not be a party to its outgoing spew.

> This is a third-party acting in good faith,

Wow, you're one twisted individual.

Can I have a hit of whatever you're smoking?  I could use a fun
hallucination tonight.  (I'll settle for reading your posts, because they're
becoming increasingly comical.)

> How would the third-party acting in good faith know who really sent the
> message?

If they don't know, they have no business telling a random third party.
And if they do drag in an innocent bystander, they are therefore *not*
acting in good faith.

> In this case however, it is in keeping with a general expectation that a DSNs
> will be sent when a message can not be delivered.  If this party wanted to
> save costs, they would toss the DSN.
>
> How can this entity know whether the DSN is going to the correct party?

In the case of malware, YOU KNOW IT IS FORGED in every case in recent
history.  What more do you need?

> How can this be called cost shifting?

If I am overburdened with other people's crap that never should have hit me,
then I am bearing the *cost* of their abuse.  And yes, spewing anything
(whether you think it's a DSN or not) at me in bulk, when it has nothing to
do with me, is abuse.

I can only deduce that you're clueless, you have an ulterior motive
(hmm...), or you haven't been using e-mail for very long.  In any case, you
are reflecting a *really* bad image on your mail domain (and thus your
employer) by being so completely lost in your own world.

I stand by my T. Roll conclusion.

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <tv at duh.org> <tv at pobox.com> <todd at vierling.name>