On 09/13/2010 11:58 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Michael Thomas >> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 10:22 AM >> To: Ian Eiloart >> Cc: DKIM >> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02 review >> >> 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, > > Given that I'm currently a strong believer in domain reputation being a big > part of the future, I've asked that question internally here, and I'm told in > return that people believe the cost incurred by switching to end-of-DATA > filtering vs. connect-time filtering is a lot larger than I believe. And > they [claim to] have the data to support that position from large customers, > so for now I'm not arguing it.
I assume you're talking about IP address based reputation which can be done once the incoming connect is completed. I've heard the same thing, but I'm always a little bit dubious about "can't be done" kinds proclamations. They almost always forget to take into account Moore's Law and clever workarounds. Luckily, IP address base filtering isn't a zero sum game with DKIM so the argument is largely academic. > >> 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. > > Those points might well encourage future MLMs to be implemented with much > tighter MTA integration, but if so, we can be sure there will always be the > legacy stuff hanging around as drag. Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking -- there's a lot of legacy out there that either on auto-pilot, or has no reason to change. Even though I don't think we should be let the MLM-tail wag the email dog, saying that we think that layering violations are a Good Thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
