ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02 review

2010-09-13 14:19:41
On 09/13/2010 11:58 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Michael 
Thomas
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 10:22 AM
To: Ian Eiloart
Cc: DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02 review

I really don't know why people who should know better are clinging onto
this
nostalgic notion that SMTP-time isn't the right (only) place to do
scanning,

Given that I'm currently a strong believer in domain reputation being a big 
part of the future, I've asked that question internally here, and I'm told in 
return that people believe the cost incurred by switching to end-of-DATA 
filtering vs. connect-time filtering is a lot larger than I believe.  And 
they [claim to] have the data to support that position from large customers, 
so for now I'm not arguing it.

I assume you're talking about IP address based reputation which can be done 
once the incoming connect is completed.
I've heard the same thing, but I'm always a little bit dubious about "can't be 
done" kinds proclamations. They
almost always forget to take into account Moore's Law and clever workarounds. 
Luckily, IP address base filtering
isn't a zero sum game with DKIM so the argument is largely academic.


but there is a layer violation issue with MLM's. Unless you have a MLM
that
is completely purpose-built with SMTP, or has bits and pieces of itself
inserted into
milter-like parts of the SMTP stream, your average MTA is going to have
no clue whether it's destined for a MLM or anything else.

Those points might well encourage future MLMs to be implemented with much 
tighter MTA integration, but if so, we can be sure there will always be the 
legacy stuff hanging around as drag.

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking -- there's a lot of legacy out there 
that either on auto-pilot, or has
no reason to change. Even though I don't think we should be let the MLM-tail 
wag the email dog, saying that we
think that layering violations are a Good Thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>