[email protected] wrote: > Another issue that would have to be addressed before this would work for DKIM > stuff would be how DKIM-MILTER operates. Given that sendmail apparently > doesn't > send the message to the milter as it comes in, I wouldn't expect milter-based > implementations to care about early header processing, initiating DNS lookups, > and so on.
Excellent point Ned. The same concept applies with most SMTP software with callouts, shims concepts at each state completion and before the client is allowed to move to the next state. In addition, the connection handle may or may not passable to the sandboxed shim to protect against channel output (state machine) corruption. But even if the milter or shim callout functionally is split by the receiver, we still need to address the SMTP explicit 451 drop/retry semantics. Backward compatibility will still be an issue. I do have an 2006 draft that attempts to deal with the HEAD/BODY issue. http://www.isdg.net/public/ietf/drafts/draft-santos-smtphead-00.html http://www.isdg.net/public/ietf/drafts/draft-santos-smtphead-00.txt If there is interest ......... -- HLS _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
