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