[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "Header Reordering", yet again

2005-05-29 07:14:13

ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:

Of course it is impossible to prove a negative.

In that case (Received-SPF) it's also unnecessary, unlike
SID's Resent-* it's not very critical.  Of course spammers
try to forge timestamp lines.

Of course they will try the same with a Received-SPF.  But
what will they get for it ?

If the receiver is very sure that he never inserted this
header field with its own receiver=FQDN parameter, he has
a good spam indicator.

Otherwise he SHOULD add his result above old results.  If
that works, and it's a setup where nothing shuffles header
fields between MX and final delivery, it's fine.

Otherwise don't believe it (and don't submit it to SpamCop,
it would fail in Spamcop's chain test).

A note about this in the "Security Considerations" maybe ?

                          Bye, Frank

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>