----- Original Message -----
From: <willemien(_at_)amidatrust(_dot_)com>
To: "Robert A. Rosenberg" <hal9001(_at_)panix(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Re:
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?
The issue depends how SPF is implemented in the host.
The ID will only work 100% if the SPF implementation is direct within SMTP
like at the MAIL FROM or DATA stage. Here you have control of both the
Received: and the Received-SPF: header.
If the SPF implementation is done as post SMTP process, then it may not any
say control or say over the creation of the current Received: line and an ID
mandate.
PS: I believe the current SPF1 specs recommends a direct SMTP
implementations to minimize bounce attacks.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com