[ietf-dkim] DKIM on envelope level
steve at wordtothewise.com
Fri Oct 30 11:45:18 PDT 2009
On Oct 30, 2009, at 11:24 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> John mentioned CHUNKING. The reason CHUNKING hasn't taken off is
>> that ...
> ... the problem it was supposed to solve wasn't important.
> In case it's not clear, I'm not saying that CHUNKING is a good idea.
> But if for whatever reason you want the ability to abandon the
> delivery between the headers and the body, CHUNKING lets you do that
> without inventing anything new.
> Signing the envelope strikes me as one of those things that sounds
> nice, but when you try to work out the wa you'd use it in a practical
> application, it turns out not to solve any interesting problems.
> In particular, if the signature required an extra round trip for an
> extra command, the delay would more than wipe out any speed increase.
> Also, it is not my impression that the mere data bytes of mail flowing
> through networks are a particular problem. If, for example, you
> pipelined DKIM checks so you could tell that you could throw away the
> body of an message as it arrived rather than storing it, how much
> better would an envelope check be?
Mailserver concurrency seems to be a significant problem at large
It's not the bytes so much as the ports multiplied by the seconds.
mail and throwing it away saves you on IO bandwidth and memory, but
it still ties up that valuable delivery slot for the entire duration
More information about the ietf-dkim