|
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 19 Nov 1995 05:27:57 +0200 |
In-Reply-To: |
Message of Sat, 18 Nov 1995 22:21:44 EST from LISTSERV
give-and-take forum < [log in to unmask]> |
Reply-To: |
|
On Sat, 18 Nov 1995 22:21:44 EST Roger Fajman <[log in to unmask]> said:
>So the fix was very useful, but it still seems like LISTSERV's loop
>detection for command jobs could use some improvement, such as limiting
>the number of command jobs accepted from any one address in a day.
But this would have a number of undesirable side effects. The real
problem in your case is that the commands were considered valid because
of the old I = INFO abbreviation, which is going away in 1.8c for just
this reason. The empty messages, as I told you in private this is the
first time in 9 years that I hear of a loop involving empty messages.
Let's face it, the loop prevention will never be perfect. The incoming
RFC822 headers can be invalid, for instance. Should LISTSERV start
maintaining counters for the number of occurrences of specific RFC822
errors and start rejecting all messages with a certain type of error
after a certain threshold? :-) I could spend a lifetime and a half adding
catches for specific problems that slip through the normal detectors, and
one day there would still be a user figuring a way to screw up anyway.
Eric
|
|
|