On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, Dave Crocker wrote:
4.3 Transmitting to a Non-SUBMITTER Aware SMTP Server
When an MTA receives a message with a SUBMITTER parameter and must
forward it to another MTA that does not support the SUBMITTER
extension, the forwarding MTA MUST transmit the message without the
SUBMITTER parameter.
This is a very big decision. I don't know whether I think it is right
or wrong, so I'm flagging it, hoping the working group discusses it.
It makes it easier to adopt, but greatly weakens its import.
What are the alternatives?
I note that as SUBMITTER is currently specified it is an optimisation to
bring some post-DATA information into the pre-DATA envelope so that liars
can be detected sooner. If a message passes through an MTA that doesn't
support SUBMITTER the information can be recovered.
(I wonder if SUBMITTER will be of any use in practice. Why should we
expect a criminal to co-operate with optimizing our anti-forgery
protocols?)
I agree with Dave's other comments.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at> http://dotat.at/
BERWICK ON TWEED TO WHITBY: NORTH OR NORTHWEST 3, BECOMES SOUTHEAST FOR A
WHILE, THEN WEST OR NORTHWEST 3 OR 4 OVERNIGHT. SCATTERED SHOWERS. GOOD.
SLIGHT.