develooper Front page | perl.beginners | Postings from December 2003

RE: My stupidity! (WAS RE: Mail::Sender weirdness)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Dan Muey
Date:
December 30, 2003 10:36
Subject:
RE: My stupidity! (WAS RE: Mail::Sender weirdness)
Message ID:
D6D77DB239A2004BB08A240E2E71460D12C2E5@LSLOFFICE.infiniplex.infiniplex.com
>
> 
> They are doing the Right Thing and not being an open relay. 
> Basically the server says *one* of the persons involved has to be 

In both cases one is always a local user. But only in one case is authentication required.

> known to it.  If the email is for a local user it knows that person. 
> If it isn't, you have to authenticate as someone it knows.  Otherwise 
> Joe Spammer can come and ask the server to please deliver these 10k 
> messages to random people.

Right, but my question is why do I need to authenticate local 
to remote and not remote to local not why do I have to authenticate at all.
I'm well aware of the spam relay fun! :)

I could spam all the local users as joemama@remotespamville.com 
all day long without any knowledge of there settings.
So I guess, why not authenticate both ways? Just a pondering, no big 
deal since they'd have to get a scirpt on the server and that'd 
make them trackable pretty quick.

> Daniel T. Staal

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About