RE: Does marid-submitter-02 really make sense?

[Shevek <ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Harry Katz wrote:

> On Monday, August 09, 2004 10:24 AM ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > First, I am not proposing anything here. Not only is 
> > SUBMITTER not my idea, I have been quite clear that I am 
> > ambivalent about its inclusion in MARID.
> > 
> > Second, the optimization in case 1 isn't a failure case but a 
> > success case.
> > There may be a throughput improvement in some MTAs if the 
> > check can be done sooner. Mind you, I'm not saying there is 
> > guaranteed to be such an improvement
> > - just that it is a possibility. Actual implementation 
> > experience would be needed to tell for sure.
> 
> Ned is exactly correct here.  The purpose of SUBMITTER is to allow early
> (i.e. at 2821-time) verification of the sender's identity, namely the
> PRA.  At the IETF meetings last week there was some discussion of
> whether this would result in bandwidth saving, throughput improvement,
> or no benefit at all.  I tend to think there will be modest throughput
> improvement, but agree with Ned that we need to verify through testing.

This is incorrect. At 2821 time, we know only who the sender CLAIMS to be
via SUBMITTER. It's not until after 2822 time, when we can compare the
SUBMITTER value to the PRA value computed from the 2822 headers that we
have verified the identity of the sender.

S.

-- 
Shevek                                    http://www.anarres.org/
I am the Borg.                         http://www.gothnicity.org/