----- Original Message ----- From: "Arvel Hathcock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: signature construct
> > and in any case I didn't expect IIM to be used to reject messages out of > > hand. But I'm willing to revisit that decision, especially since there is > > now stronger sending policy that might make outright rejection a > > possibility in some cases. > > Well, this is definitely a topic for the WG but if we're contemplating > rejecting the message during the SMTP session itself, my MTA is already > doing that but, of course, it has to go through the DATA phase first. If > you want to reject prior to DATA us MTA vendors should implement on an SMTP > extension that fetches the headers only (there is one - I think) ? Yes and no. We have the BDAT extension (A.K.A. chunking), RFC 1830, which allows you to use an alternative DATA command to define chunks of blocks to receive. I have proposed (via discussion in MARID) a more specific HEAD like command concept to address the same PAYLOAD issues for SENDER-ID/PRA and other future application capabilities I foresee as an inevitible requirement in the future. Coupled with this, we need to revisit dynamic SMTP transaction TIMEOUT issues. -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
