Timing and protocol defects: Difference between revisions
From ASRG
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|popular=Medium | |popular=Medium | ||
|effective=High | |effective=High | ||
| | |harm=Low | ||
|where=MTA | |where=MTA | ||
}} | }} | ||
SMTP requires that clients wait for a 2xx response to the HELO or EHLO command before proceeding. One ant-spam technique, known as a ''premature pipeline check'', detects extra data in the input buffer prior to the server sending the HELO/EHLO response. If such data is found, the client has failed the test. The server might then reject the message, close the connection, blacklist the client, etc. | SMTP requires that clients wait for a 2xx response to the HELO or EHLO command before proceeding. One ant-spam technique, known as a ''premature pipeline check'', detects extra data in the input buffer prior to the server sending the HELO/EHLO response. If such data is found, the client has failed the test. The server might then reject the message, close the connection, blacklist the client, etc. | ||
Revision as of 09:29, 14 March 2008
| Anti-spam technique: Timing and protocol defects | |
|---|---|
| Date of first use: | |
| Effectiveness: | High |
| Popularity: | Medium |
| Difficulty of implementation: | Low |
| Where implemented: | MTA |
| Harm: | Low |
SMTP requires that clients wait for a 2xx response to the HELO or EHLO command before proceeding. One ant-spam technique, known as a premature pipeline check, detects extra data in the input buffer prior to the server sending the HELO/EHLO response. If such data is found, the client has failed the test. The server might then reject the message, close the connection, blacklist the client, etc.
