[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is the .to (Tonga) domain completely rogue and should be removed?
- To: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Is the .to (Tonga) domain completely rogue and should be removed?
- From: Anonymous <[email protected]>
- Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 20:41:20 +0200
- Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above.It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software.Please report problems or inappropriate use to theremailer administrator at <[email protected]>.
- Sender: [email protected]
Read RFC 1123, section 5.2.3.
5.2.3 VRFY and EXPN Commands: RFC-821 Section 3.3
A receiver-SMTP MUST implement VRFY and SHOULD implement EXPN
(this requirement overrides RFC-821). However, there MAY be
configuration information to disable VRFY and EXPN in a
particular installation; this might even allow EXPN to be
disabled for selected lists.
A new reply code is defined for the VRFY command:
252 Cannot VRFY user (e.g., info is not local), but will
take message for this user and attempt delivery.
SMTP users and administrators make regular use of these
commands for diagnosing mail delivery problems. With the
increasing use of multi-level mailing list expansion
(sometimes more than two levels), EXPN has been
increasingly important for diagnosing inadvertent mail
loops. On the other hand, some feel that EXPN represents
a significant privacy, and perhaps even a security,
VRFY is hardly an "incorrect SMTP command."
>Your reasoning as to why its responses to incorrect SMTP
>commands constitutes evidence that the .TO domain is "negligent",
>"mismanaged" and "an attractive resource for criminal activities"
>is ironically incorrect. In fact, having an *unsecured* port 25 open to mail
>relaying would be negligent.
>- Eric Gullichsen
> Tonic Corporation
> Kingdom of Tonga Network Information Center
> Email: [email protected]