On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 19:54, Mark Foster wrote:
Don't recall if this has been covered before, but I'm wondering if, in light
of the recently discussed intentions in pursuing official RFC status, should
the Received-SPF: header recommendation be X-Received-SPF: instead?
No. RFC 2822 (obsoletes 822) doesn't even mention X- headers. Any
header that's not defined in that RFC is referred to as an "optional
field" (RFC 2822, section 3.6.8). The prevailing idea also seems to
be that X- headers used outside of confined environments are always
(or at least very often) a "bad thing". Anyone interested in the
arguments should check out the last few days of traffic on the
ietf-822 mailing list:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/mail-archive/maillist.html
Bob
--
-=[ B. Johannessen | bob(_at_)db(_dot_)org -=- http://db.org/ | +4797152009 ]=-
-=[ Mail & Spam - News, Drafts & Standards - http://db.org/blog/ ]=-
-------
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-02.9.4.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?¡