Maximizing effectiveness against 'empty' spam?

Kevin W. Gagel
Wed Jun 16 23:01:33 UTC 2004

I do recall this thread, there is a legitimate reason for it. I do not recall
the reason, some one else will though.

----- Original Message Follows -----
Date: 16 Jun 2004 22:37:17 -0000

> I'm working on integrating our products with DCC via the dccifd
> and QA has come up with something they believe is a bug: the
> non-rejection of messages with empty bodies.
> The dccifd isn't complaining about 'missing message body', so
> I'm pretty sure my software is talking to the dccifd correctly.
> However, with the DCCIFD_REJECT_AT set at '10', sending 11 identical
> messages with empty bodies doesn't get any messages rejected.
> DCCIFD_WHITECLNT is 'whiteclnt', pretty much unmodified from the
> distribution, and we're not using the dcc-testmsg-whitelist.txt file
> that's available at
> dccifd invocation:
> /u0/dcc/libexec/dccifd -SDccTestBlackList -Linfo,mail.debug \
>    -Lerror,mail.debug -l log -t CMN,1,10 -w whiteclnt -U userdirs
> I'm guessing that the problem is the '-t CMN' part, since the man page
> lists CMN as 'Body, Fuz1, Fuz2'.  Do Fuz1 and Fuz2 cover the headers,
> or are they just 'fuzzy' checksums of the body?
> Setting the threshold for individual header fields like the dccifd.8
> page lists (IP, env_From, From, Message-ID, Received) doesn't seem like
> a good approach for this, but a (perhaps fuzzy) checksum of the entire
> header might work.
> I'll admit that I don't see empty SPAM as being a large problem, but QA
> and the people I work for do, so I'm looking for solutions :-)
> Thanks,
> Robert Thille
> _______________________________________________
> DCC mailing list

Kevin W. Gagel
Network Administrator
(250) 561-5848 local 448
(250) 562-2131 local 448

The College of New Caledonia, Visit us at
Virus scanning is done on all incoming and outgoing email.

More information about the DCC mailing list

Contact by mail or use the form.