On Sat May 28 2005 12:13, ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
At 08:05 PM 5/27/2005 -0400, Bruce Lilly wrote:
On Fri May 27 2005 18:49, David MacQuigg wrote:
We don't expect every sender to be
[...]
Past experience with SPF indicates that spammers -- who have financial
[...]
We seem to be losing context again. The question is whether we can specify
[...]
Something seems to be awry with attributions.
Valdis Kletnieks already
pointed out that SPF information could be piggybacked on existing Received:
fields. I have yet to see an agent that reorders Received: fields.
How does that square with:
On Fri, 27 May 2005 09:31:37 -0700 (PDT),
<ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com>
wrote:
This could even result in reordering of trace fields in some cases,
especially
if clocks are out of sync (which they often are). The mapping of trace
fields
to X.400 in particular is pretty complicated.
I should have noted that this issue only applies to Recevied: and
X400-Received: fields.
One statement says that Received fields have not been observed to have
been reordered; the other implies that Received fields are at some risk
of being reordered.