On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Teddy wrote:
Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
heavyweight systems. Furthermore, the after DATA XML based systems are
reasonably implemented outside of the MTA, in a MUA, LDA, milter, or post
reception filter. (As opposed to SPFv1 which needs to be implemented in
real time during the SMTP transaction - either directly by the MTA or via
a milter or similar MTA extension.)
If you do the checks in the MUA what do you win? What should be the
coal? Then the coal can't be to prevent the MUA (which perhaps is
connected by a slow modem) from unwanted mail. Or do I miss here something?
For those of us with a Real Operating System(tm), the MTA and MUA are
often on the same machine. For those running a M$ client OS connected
to a remote mail server, you are right that implementing the anti-forgery
protocols in the MUA would not be effective in saving bandwidth. If
I were managing that remote mail server, I would probably do it in the LDA.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.