On 3/20/21 2:51 PM, John Levine wrote: > It's defined in RFC 3030. Read all about it: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3030 > > It happens that I just added CHUNKING and BDAT to an MTA I use (mailfront if > you know > what that is.) Inbound the code is quite simple and I would be surprised if > there were > any problems with it. Outbound it's a little trickier since BDAT requires > you to know > the exact size of the chunk of message you're sending, which means it has to > deal with > turning \n into \r\n, but again, it's not a big deal. > > I'm guessing that someone had some problem talking to Gmail or > Hotmail/Outlook, the > two largest systems that can use BDAT, turned it off to see if that was the > problem, > and never bothered to turn it back on when it wasn't.
This reminded me that Postfix does not have BINARYMIME support. GMail does not, but Outlook does. How useful would BINARYMIME support be? It does mean that DKIM signing would need to be done in the sending path, but I cannot think of any reasons that would be a blocker. Having DKIM and DMARC built-in to Postfix would be a nice feature, tbh. The only open-source MTA I know of with built-in DKIM is Exim but I would never dare use it in production. Ideally, the signing keys should be in a separate process for privilege separation, but Postfix is already multi-process so that should be doable. Of course, the final decision is up to Wietse. Sincerely, Demi Marie Obenour she/her/hers
OpenPGP_0xB288B55FFF9C22C1.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
