|
|||||||||||
|
RE: Distributed spam-based DoS in progress
From: Hugo van der Kooij <hvdkooij(at)vanderkooij.org>
Date: Wed Feb 19 2003 - 01:49:55 EST
> > From: Hugo van der Kooij [mailto:hvdkooij@vanderkooij.org]
>From 4.5.5.:
Implementors of automated email processors should be careful to make sure that the various kinds of messages with null reverse-path are handled correctly, in particular such systems SHOULD NOT reply to messages with null reverse-path. But the problem arises before that. If your server is set to accept message for non existing accounts you have a server that can be easily brought down. If you do not accept these messages you do not have to send bounce messages. It will the task of the system that tried to hand them to you. If you find yourself with a server with lots of waiting bounces your are likely (ab)used as relay and you have other fish to fry. And from 6.1: When the receiver-SMTP accepts a piece of mail (by sending a "250 OK" message in response to DATA), it is accepting responsibility for delivering or relaying the message. It must take this responsibility seriously. It MUST NOT lose the message for frivolous reasons, such as because the host later crashes or because of a predictable resource shortage. Which seems to indicate you have to make sure your mailserver is up to the task. Hugo.
--
All email sent to me is bound to the rules described on my homepage.
hvdkooij(at)vanderkooij.org
http://hvdkooij.xs4all.nl/
Don't meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
for they are subtle and quick to anger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided by the SecurityFocus ARIS analyzer service.
For more information on this free incident handling, management
and tracking system please see:
http://aris.securityfocus.com
Received on Wed Feb 19 14:48:23 2003This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 23 2006 - 14:01:58 EDT |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||