----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark" <admin(_at_)asarian-host(_dot_)net>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] An additonal macro character?
Do you mean the original IP? For that, you would need to make SPF checks
at the end of the DATA phase, so that you can do SPF checks against the
original IP as well (in case of a "fail" on the immediate sender IP),
extracted from the Received headers. That would take care of the
forwarding problem too, but consumes bandwidth, as you need to sit out the
DATA ride. I would not have minded that, though, if the protocol allowed
for a "second pass" SPF phase at the end of the DATA phase, if you get a
"fail" on the first phase.
Thinking out loud here for a moment, would it actually be against the
protocol to implement such a 'delayed' SPF check? I mean, suppose I got a
"fail" at envfrom_callback, would it violate the protocol to keep this
"fail" pending, as it were, until after the DATA phase completed, so that I
could check against the IP of the (possible) Received header of the
forwarder? (or any depth of Received headers, for that matter).
- Mark
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡