Meng Weng Wong wrote:
I'd like to make the Received-SPF header more structured. Can you guys
suggest a sane format?
Here's one idea:
header = 'Received-SPF:' 1*WSP result [ FWS '(' comment ')' ] CRLF
FWS = ([*WSP CRLF] 1*WSP
result = 'pass' / 'fail' / 'error' / 'unknown'
/ unknown-declarations
unknown-declarations = 'unknown' *( FWS declaration )
comment = smtp-receiver-hostname ':' envelope-sender ':' current-domain
':' match-mechanism [ ':' comment-string ]
smtp-receiver-hostname = 1*VCHAR
;hostname given by SMTP client at HELO or EHLO command
envelope-sender = 1*VCHAR
;reverse-path given by SMTP client at MAIL FROM command
current-domain = IPV4Address / IPV6Address
;IP address of current SMTP client
match-mechanism = mechanism / 'none'
;mechanism format specified in section 3.2
;MUST be the mechanism which was actually matched to cause the
; current result if a mechanism was matched
;MUST be 'none' if no match was made for any reason
; (ie, error, no SPF information given)
comment-string = VCHAR [ 1*( FWS VCHAR ) ]
;SHOULD include further information not already provided
; (ie, description of error message in the case of errors)
;SHOULD mention if the "best_guess" function is used
;MAY include a human-readable explanation of why the current result
; was decided
;MAY in the future include other "important" information such as SPF
; version number, or additional colon-delimited information
I don't think distinguishing between +all and other forms of "pass" will
be useful. Square peg, round hole. Spammers can think of a dozen ways
to fake a +all. Consider "ptr:com ptr:org", or a bunch of ip4:1/2 type
things, etc. Better to leave that stone unturned.
Very true.
--
Jim Ramsay
-------
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?¡