[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re:

2005-06-01 07:07:08

At 16:33 -0400 on 05/31/2005, Bruce Lilly wrote about Re: "Header
Reordering", yet again:

On Tue May 31 2005 15:51, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:

 Or link them by having the ID field from the Received Header
 > replicated in the Received-SPF Header.

Been there, discussed that. The "id" component is optional.
You can't replicate what isn't there.

Is there something simpeler than adding in the SPF draft that for SPF 
compliance an ID field in the received header is a MUST?

No I do not take the argument that the draft is unchangable becaurse it 
discribes the way SPF allready works.
RFC means request for COMMENTS and a draft is even before that stage...

(sorry if you think that i am over reacting on this)

Other small point:

section 5.2 an include that is not an include

In hindsight, the name "include" was poorly chosen.

Then rename it.
Or at least rename it to any of the better names
and use "include" as an obsolete term that also mans the same.
(If you really want to keep it working)

IN RFC's (if that is still where you are aiming at) hindsights should only be 
about other RFC's not to (pre)-draft- documents

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: Re:, willemien <=