Re: SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity

[Robert Bonomi <bonomi () mail r-bonomi com>]

> From owner-nanog () merit edu  Sat Dec 10 16:56:38 2005
> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:55:38 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
> From: Todd Vierling <tv () duh org>
> To: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: SMTP store and forward requires DSN for integrity
>
>
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> > BATV will make forged DSNs a thing of the past, irrespective of where a
> > recipient list is checked, an AV or SPAM filter is added, etc.
>
> Stop plugging a recipient-side cost-shift scheme that you're directly
> involved with as some sort of panacea.  BATV has benefits, as do other
> schemes, but you're still fixated on it as being the end-all, be-all of
> forgery prevention -- by making third parties do the dirty work and letting
> the instigators off the hook.
>
> By putting the costs on the shoulders of third parties, you're putting
> yourself squarely on the side of the spewing hosts, and being as ignorant as
> the admins running the anti-malware products on those hosts.  For shame.

I recommend to all a review of the "Rules of Spam". 

Rule #1, in particular. Specifically the "Lexical Contradiciton" and "Sharp's
Corollary".

We seem to have yet another example for the 'rules-keeper's refrain'.  *sigh*

Considering the source of _this_ demonstration, one can only despair -- what
possible chance is there for things to 'get better', when one of the putatively
'good guys' espouses that kind of double-think?