Re: Frustration with spurious posts.

Discussion in 'Python' started by JanC, Jul 6, 2003.

  1. JanC

    JanC Guest

    Alan Kennedy <> schreef:

    > Bringing an end to the problem would probably involve a fairly
    > substantial admin effort on the part of the python.org admins.


    No, it's the admins that run an antivirus on their mail server or the users
    that use broken anti-virus/anti-spam tools that should fix their system.
    It's plain stupid and irresponsible to bounce or send a mail back to a
    *forged* and often randomly shuffled "From:" address, doubling or tripling
    the mail traffic generated by the virus itself. :-(

    (I have even seen one system "bouncing" virus mails with the attachment
    included, sending the virus to an innocent user...)

    --
    JanC

    "Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving."
    RFC 1958 - Architectural Principles of the Internet - section 3.9
    JanC, Jul 6, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising


  2. >>> Alan Kennedy wrote

    > Is there some sort of mail header that these virus checking gateways
    > could examine, to see if the email is from a list, rather than an
    > individual, before it sends these emails? Maybe we need to invent one,
    > e.g.
    >
    > X-Dont-Send-Me-Virus-Reports: YES


    Won't help - the virus that fakes '' (or
    - while it's old, I'm sure it's out there still)
    won't generate this header.

    Greg Ward's aware of the issue, and he's working on it - offers of
    useful round tuits to help him wouldn't be a bad thing.

    > > "Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving."
    > > RFC 1958 - Architectural Principles of the Internet - section 3.9

    >
    > Do this mean we should quietly tolerate the "you sent me a virus!"
    > emails?
    >
    > ;-)


    No, it means you should send very firmly worded "fix your fucking
    mail gateway" messages to the people sending back useless bounce
    messages.

    --
    Anthony Baxter <>
    It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
    Anthony Baxter, Jul 6, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 08:54:40 -0400, Alan Kennedy wrote:

    > But if an email is sent from an individual to an individual, then such
    > "you sent me a virus!" emails can be very useful information. It's only
    > when an email address is associated with lots of subscribers that it
    > becomes a problem. Or, as you pointed out, when the from address is
    > forged.


    The from address is always forged.
    
    I get literally hundreds of bounces daily from various viruses. My
    Bayesian filter had not yet learned to distinguish them from real bounces.
    I did not send any of them. For the bounces that include the original email in
    an rfc822 attachment, this can be verified by looking at the 'Recieved'
    headers. It never went anywhere near my system. I don't even run Windows
    - and these are Windows viruses.

    I also receive email threatening bodily harm for sending spam. A less
    clueless admin sent me email saying that he had contacted my ISP and had
    my account cancelled - and included a ticket # to prove it. I looked at
    the ticket, and there was indeed an account cancelled at some ISP I'd
    never heard of. Since the admin was smart enough to look at the headers
    to track down the real ISP, you would think he would be smart enough to
    realize that any From headers in spam are completely bogus.

    Sending any kind of reply to a spam or viral email is clueless and
    counterproductive under any circumstances. All it accomplishes is
    annoying yet another innocent bystander.
    Stuart D. Gathman, Jul 7, 2003
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ian A. Mason
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    562
    Ian A. Mason
    Feb 24, 2005
  2. Markus Elfring

    Re: spurious wakeup

    Markus Elfring, Nov 25, 2004, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    424
    Markus Elfring
    Nov 25, 2004
  3. Markus Elfring

    Re: spurious wakeup

    Markus Elfring, Nov 27, 2004, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    942
    Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
    Nov 30, 2004
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,427
  5. John Perks and Sarah Mount
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    324
    Michele Simionato
    Jun 20, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page