-----Original Message-----
From: mail-vet-discuss-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:mail-vet-discuss-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 9:53 AM
To: mail-vet-discuss(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: [mail-vet-discuss] Removing A-R headers fields
(is this list still active?)
Section 5 of rfc5451 says:
An MTA SHOULD remove any instance of this header field bearing a
version (express or implied) that it does not support. However, an
MTA MUST remove such a header if the [SMTP] connection relaying the
message is not from a trusted internal MTA.
I'm puzzled about the "trusted internal" qualification. Assuming that
"internal" is relative to an ADMD, "trusted" seemingly means the
opposite of "compromised". Or was that meant to be "trusted _or_
internal"? Perhaps, a trusted forwarder's A-R fields could be let
alone...
It's meant to distinguish between an internal MTA maintained by, for example,
an ADMD's IT department versus one on someone's desktop. "Compromised" is one
possibility for exclusion; "unauthorized" is another.
BTW, any pointer to current deployments of this field?
Speaking only from personal experience, Google, Yahoo, dkim-milter, opendkim,
dk-milter (deprecated), sid-milter all use it.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html