Does the SUBMITTER parameter really make sense?
Case 1: The sender is authorized by some domain to
send messages. The message will have to be accepted and therefore
to be transmitted. No benefit in checking the parameter before
transmission. Could do this also after transmission.
Maybe, maybe not. Having the information early might in some MTAs allow for
You are proposing an optimisation of what will become the rare failure
case. That's like optimising printing the 'bad password' message. It never
First, I am not proposing anything here. Not only is SUBMITTER not my idea, I
have been quite clear that I am ambivalent about its inclusion in MARID.
Second, the optimization in case 1 isn't a failure case but a success case.
There may be a throughput improvement in some MTAs if the check can be done
sooner. Mind you, I'm not saying there is guaranteed to be such an improvement
- just that it is a possibility. Actual implementation experience would be
needed to tell for sure.
I agree with Hadmut. I don't think it's worth changing SMTP to introduce a
new field to optimise what will soon become a fringe case. However, I also
disagree with the introduction of any new header fields.
My objection to the use of a new header field for this was and continues to be
the primary reason for participating in this thread. Unlike the SMTP extension,
where there may be an upside and there's likely little if any downside, the
header field notion is stamped "bad idea" right out of the box.