Tony Hansen wrote:
Unfortunately, the different authentication mechanisms are usually
looking at totally different things. SIDF uses either or both
smtp.mailfrom and/or header.{from,sender,resent-from,resent-sender}.
DKIM potentially uses the entire header *and* the body. CSV uses
smtp.{helo,ehlo}. BATV uses smtp.mailfrom.
Well the draft doesn't say you MUST combine results evaluating a common thing
onto the same line. It just says you can, especially if one agent (e.g. a
milter) is able to complete two different authentication checks using the same
input data (i.e. the same header). There's nothing wrong with generating one
header per method and result as it's currently defined.
Also, the results produced by the different authentication mechanisms
may generate different values, further eliminating commonality.
True, but as designed now, two different methods evaluating the same thing (e.g.
the same header) could report their results using a single A-R header or by
using one header for each result; e.g.:
Authentication-Results: example.net
header(_dot_)From=user(_at_)example(_dot_)com;
method1=pass; method2=fail
Anyway, I'm not really arguing that your idea is a bad one, just explaining
where what's there got its origins. I'll check out the ABNF you proposed and
reply to that one shortly.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html