Felix Buenemann wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with Arthur and Bgs in that SPF is a smarter thing to check, > because it can be done without checking headers and currently has a much > wider disribution base. > > IMHO the only way to properly reject DKIM failed mail is at the end of > the DATA command, which is exactly how eg. simscan rejects virii or spam > mail. So IMHO DKIM verification is something to do for a queue-handler > not a frot end smtp handler, that is geared for high performance. (This > is based on the assumtion, that spamdyke deals with 99% of the scam with > very little cpu time, thus reducing server load and leaving more in > depth checks to those mails that slip through spamdyke's already tight web.) > > -- Felix
Good thinking, Felix. Some things just don't belong in spamdyke as is. -- -Eric 'shubes' _______________________________________________ spamdyke-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.spamdyke.org/mailman/listinfo/spamdyke-users
