ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM on envelope level

2009-10-30 15:18:19
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Delany [mailto:markd+dkim(_at_)yahoo-inc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:31 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net; IETF DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM on envelope level

Do you mean the server's side of the connection will have buffer
data in it?  That would mean the client sent DATA<CR><LF> followed
by header/body information, possibly even in the same packet,
without waiting for the reply from DATA.  The server could drop the
connection

I haven't been watching lately, but at some point a popular bot
technique was to send the whole transaction without looking at the
responses. After all, what do they care?

It was popular enough to generate the "greet_pause" feature in
sendmail - as you must know. I don't know whether "greet_pause"-type
detection is so wide-spread now that spammers have moved away from
doing it, but I'll bet a lot still don't care and just blast away.

I agree that they're probably doing that, but you can save yourself a lot of 
server-side stuff like temporary storage of a (possibly large) message body, 
creation of a thread, etc. if you observe at DATA that there's more information 
pending before you've sent back the 354.  Sure, the bits have already come down 
the wire and into a kernel socket buffer, but the client can abort early 
(freeing resources, maybe even shutting down the session) which conserves some 
user-level server resources.

The same might be true if at DATA the client has failed some kind of envelope 
signature test like what's been proposed.


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html