|
Re: "Header Reordering", yet again
2005-05-31 13:01:28
At 14:05 +0100 on 05/31/2005, Paul Smith wrote about Re: "Header
Reordering", yet again:
If you specified that the timestamp on the Received-SPF field MUST be
IDENTICAL to the timestamp on the Received: line added by the same server,
that might solve some problems.
Or link them by having the ID field from the Received Header
replicated in the Received-SPF Header.
| <Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, (continued)
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, Hector Santos
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, Hector Santos
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, Frank Ellermann
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, David MacQuigg
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, David MacQuigg
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, william(at)elan.net
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again,
Robert A. Rosenberg <=
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, Bruce Lilly
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, David MacQuigg
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, ned+ietf-smtp
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, Bruce Lilly
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, David MacQuigg
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, ned+ietf-smtp
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, David MacQuigg
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, ned+ietf-smtp
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, Bruce Lilly
- Re: "Header Reordering", yet again, David MacQuigg
|
|
|