On 09/13/2010 08:59 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
>
> --On 13 September 2010 11:38:39 -0400 "John R. Levine"<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> --On 13 September 2010 10:19:05 -0400 "MH Michael Hammer (5304)"
>>> <[email protected]>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree that if a signing domain publishes discardable then the MLM
>>>> should discard it.
>>>
>>> If the message is unsigned, right? Otherwise, it should reject it at
>>> SMTP  time (actually, that might be done by the MTA rather than the
>>> MLM). In fact  the MTA should reject (at SMTP time) rather than discard
>>> such messages,  I think.
>>
>> If it's signed, I agree there's little downside to rejecting it.  But
>> since they said it's discardable, there's little advantage to doing so,
>> either.
>
> No, there really is an advantage. The sender gets to see that they've tried
> to do something that they can't.
>
>
>> A disadvantage is that it requires the SMTP daemon to do a lot of work,
>> do the whole DKIM validation and ADSP lookup before deciding whether to
>> reject. You can discard any old time, no need to do it while the TCP
>> session is open.
>
> No need to, but we do *all* our message scanning, including AV and
> spamassassin at SMTP time, because we (a) don't like generating bounce
> messages, (b) don't like blackholing, (c) think that spam mailboxes act
> like blackholes, and (d) don't want to deliver malware anyway. It doesn't
> take a huge resource to do this quite quickly, especially if you reject
> early on RBLs.

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,
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. So any BCP'ish
language which implied that you should SMTP-500 MLM traffic for ADSP
discardable would be... problematic.

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

Reply via email to