At 11:08 AM +0200 8/5/05, Brian Azzopardi imposed structure on a
stream of electrons, yielding:
We know that Exchange and some other MTAs smash messages beyond
recognition.
So your goal, if I understand you correctly, is to make something that
works only some of the time? Considering that SMBs are increasingly
moving to Exchange wouldn't that render the scheme even more ineffective
over time?
Do you have hard numbers on a move towards Exchange as a border MTA?
I have a non-representative frame of reference (automotive companies,
primarily) but it seems to me that the move is in the other
direction: relegating Exchange to what it does best (integrated LAN
mail with integrated calendaring and some workflow automation) and
wrapping corporate systems on the Internet border with mail systems
that are more competent for that function. FWIW, I am also told by
people who know better than I that the latest Exchange is less
world-hostile than earlier incarnations.
In context, this may well lead to setups where the actual MUA and the
MSA/MDA/message store it deals with (i.e. Exchange, Notes, and the
like) are essentially fed only 'good' messages from the outside world
by MTA's and their subsidiary pieces that understand and adhere to
broader standards. As a manager of some systems like that with
sendmail-based systems already shielding Exchange internal systems
from Bad Stuff, I'm looking at DKIM validation as a likely tactic
with anything that explicitly fails (as opposed to 'lacks') DKIM
verification to be rejected by the border MTA's. At that point I do
not care about what Microsoft's software does to messages, because
all they will see is mail that passed when it entered the enterprise
or mail that cannot be tested.
But some MTAs don't.
If even as widely used an MTA as sendmail has an issue (worked around by
simple canonicalization) I wonder how many interesting MUAs behind
interesting MTAs there are. Do you have any numbers?
I think John's original request was intended to generate such numbers.
Brian
This mail was checked for viruses by GFI MailSecurity.
Nobody with half a clue about mail-borne malware trusts such a
statement in mail to mean anything good. It is in fact a weakly
positive sign that a message is viral for it to include a
proclamation that some scanner has cleared it.
GFI also develops anti-spam software (GFI MailEssentials), a fax
server (GFI FAXmaker), and network security and management software
(GFI LANguard) - www.gfi.com
GFI also reduces its credibility by tacking on ads to every message.
--
Bill Cole
bill(_at_)scconsult(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg