----- Original Message -----
From: "wayne" <wayne(_at_)midwestcs(_dot_)com>
To: "SPF discussions" <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: clamav plugin?
So, what are the advantages of using "Received-SPF:" compared
with "Received: SPF"?
To me, it feels a bit counter-intuitive. Here we have "Received-SPF", as
"field-name", plus a result code (pass, fail, softfail, etc) as "field-body"
content. It seems "Received" and "SPF", as an inseparable entity (like
"resent-from"), belong together in the field-name.
I would have mildly preferred "X-Received-SPF", if it were not for the fact
that RFC 2822 seems to shy away from 'rogue' X-headers. So, as it is, I am
perfectly happy with "Received-SPF".
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.5.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡