On 2007-05-29 14:25, John Levine wrote:
I don't see the advantage of having it say
in-23.atl.mail.earthlink.net rather than mail.earthlink.net.
Agents use the identifier, the FQDN in this case, to determine
whether the Authentication-Results header can be trusted. The FQDN
may not the best choice in the case of mail farms.
Well, yeah. Seems to me that mail farms are likely to apply the
majority of these headers, so we better have something that works
with them.
Stepping back for a moment...is there any reason that the identifier
can't be 'icannhascheezburger' or some other nonsense, so long as the
internal network (and perhaps MUAs which connect to that internal
network) knows what to look for?
If not, then perhaps the answer is that the identifier SHOULD be unique
to that network, and it is RECOMMENDED to use the hostname (either real
or virtual) of the MTA which determined the contents of the header.
And, of course, MTAs SHOULD ignore that identifier on messages coming
from outside of their trusted network -- but as John pointed out, the
trusted network may easily be large and amorphous.
--
J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager
Yahoo! Mail
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html