Subject: RE: [Asrg] Re: Body signature subgroup and the forwarding project

From: "Brian Azzopardi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:08:51 +0200

> We know that Exchange and some other MTAs smash messages beyond
recognition.

So your goal, if I understand you correctly, is to make something that
works only some of the time? Considering that SMBs are increasingly
moving to Exchange wouldn't that render the scheme even more ineffective
over time?

> But some MTAs don't.

If even as widely used an MTA as sendmail has an issue (worked around by
simple canonicalization) I wonder how many interesting MUAs behind
interesting MTAs there are. Do you have any numbers?

Brian

This mail was checked for viruses by GFI MailSecurity. 
GFI also develops anti-spam software (GFI MailEssentials), a fax server (GFI FAXmaker), and network security and management software (GFI LANguard) - www.gfi.com 

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Peter J. Holzer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:38:37 +0200

> interesting MTAs there are. Do you have any numbers?

I understand the purpose of this experiment is to get such numbers.

	hp

-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer    | Ich sehe nun ein, dass Computer wenig
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR       | geeignet sind, um sich was zu merken.
| |   | [email-masked]         |
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ |	-- Holger Lembke in dan-am
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Bill Cole <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 23:31:37 -0400

At 11:08 AM +0200 8/5/05, Brian Azzopardi  imposed structure on a 
>moving to Exchange wouldn't that render the scheme even more ineffective

Do you have hard numbers on a move towards Exchange as a border MTA?

I have a non-representative frame of reference (automotive companies, 
primarily) but it seems to me that the move is in the other 
direction: relegating Exchange to what it does best (integrated LAN 
mail with integrated calendaring and some workflow automation) and 
wrapping corporate systems on the Internet border with mail systems 
that are more competent for that function. FWIW, I am also told by 
people who know better than I that the latest Exchange is less 
world-hostile than earlier incarnations.

In context, this may well lead to setups where the actual MUA and the 
MSA/MDA/message store it deals with (i.e. Exchange, Notes, and the 
like) are essentially fed only 'good' messages from the outside world 
by MTA's and their subsidiary pieces that understand and adhere to 
broader standards. As a manager of some systems like that with 
sendmail-based systems already shielding Exchange internal systems 
from Bad Stuff, I'm looking at DKIM validation as a likely tactic 
with anything that explicitly fails (as opposed to 'lacks') DKIM 
verification to be rejected by the border MTA's. At that point I do 
not care about what Microsoft's software does to messages, because 
all they will see is mail that passed when it entered the enterprise 
or mail that cannot be tested.

>interesting MTAs there are. Do you have any numbers?

I think John's original request was intended to generate such numbers.

>This mail was checked for viruses by GFI MailSecurity.

Nobody with half a clue about mail-borne malware trusts such a 
statement in mail to mean anything good. It is in fact a weakly 
positive sign that a message is viral for it to include a 
proclamation that some scanner has cleared it.

>GFI also develops anti-spam software (GFI MailEssentials), a fax
>server (GFI FAXmaker), and network security and management software
>(GFI LANguard) - www.gfi.com

GFI also reduces its credibility by tacking on ads to every message.

-- 
Bill Cole
[email-masked]