The mailing list for listmasters using Sympa

[micah anderson <address@concealed>]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:03:52 -0800, Adam Bernstein <address@concealed> 
wrote:

> And Micah (good to hear from you!) -- yes, we have tried activating DKIM 
> via Postfix with the DKIMProxy module, and that was easy to set up and 
> worked great.  But as Serge says, doing it at the Sympa level would let us 
> sign just some messages and not others.  That's pretty attractive, 

Yeah, Serge's email clarified it for me, being able to sign certain
messages from certain robots makes a lot of sense. We only use one
robot, so I wasn't thinking of that possibility... however:

> certainly for testing purposes, but mostly because we saw (as expected) a 
> vastly increased CPU load from the unlimited DKIM signing.  So we're
> not 

this is weird to me because we are basically doing unlimited dkim
signing on all of our outbound mail that originates from our listserver,
and we have quite a large number of messages going out constantly, and
the dkim-filter process is hardly using any CPU at all (and yes, it is
actually signing).

You mentioned "the DKIMProxy module" which I am not familiary with, we
have been using the debian package 'dkim-filter', which provides the
'dkim-milter' program that we are using. 

> sure we can manage it on all list messages; we might need to restrict it to 
> only administrative messages or similar, even on the new server we just 
> installed.  That would be frustrating, since DKIM may become increasingly 
> necessary for deliverability of list traffic especially, but it would still 
> be better than no signing at all.

I don't want to dissuade you from doing the dkim signing from your
messages at the Sympa level if you need that granualarity of choice of
what to sign, but I am wondering if there is something else going on
with the dkim implementation you were using?

micah

Attachment: pgpRJU1Ty_PJP.pgp
Description: PGP signature