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
|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 10:29, 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.